Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment of the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. First, I address the second-degree amendment the senior Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, is offering. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this second-degree amendment, also. The Reid second-degree amendment would exempt derivative contracts on precious metals from the new regulatory scheme the Feinstein amendment creates. We are told the Feinstein amendment is necessary to avoid the manipulation of markets for commodities that are in limited supply like oil or metals. Underpinning the Feinstein amendment is the belief the Enron debacle and the California energy crisis occurred because there was insufficient regulation and wrongdoers were able to accomplish massive frauds and manipulation. The Feinstein amendment is intended to close the alleged regulatory loophole for off-exchange transactions for exempt commodities. Assume, only for argument's sake, that Senator Feinstein is correct. Assume the regulatory regime established only 2\1/2\ years ago is insufficient and that we must close a so-called regulatory loophole. If you believe this and support the Feinstein amendment, you must necessarily oppose the Reid second-degree amendment, which will carve a vast number of derivative contracts out of the regulatory scheme the Feinstein amendment creates. I don't believe we can have it both ways. What is necessary for the energy markets is necessary for the metals markets. I encourage my colleagues to oppose both the Reid second-degree amendment and the Feinstein amendment as unnecessary, redundant, and potentially destabilizing to our financial markets. I encourage my colleagues who feel compelled to support the Feinstein amendment to not support the Reid amendment, which is at direct cross-purposes to the underlying amendment. Less than 3 years ago, in December 2000, Congress enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was landmark legislation that provided legal certainty regarding the regulatory status of derivatives. Passage of the modernization act was the result of many months of analysis of the role that derivatives play in the marketplace and the consequences of increased regulation. In fact, because the modernization act addressed derivative products pertaining to commodities and financial products, both the Agriculture Committee and Banking Committee held numerous hearings to help Members and the public better understand the role the various derivative financial instruments and contracts played in our economy and what regulatory landscape, if any, is appropriate. Now, only 3 years after enactment of the modernization act, Senator Feinstein's amendment proposes fundamental changes to the law. I believe this amendment could create many regulatory problems, including creating jurisdictional confusion between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, imposing problematic capital requirements on facilities trading derivatives, and impugning the legal certainty of OTC derivatives put in place in 2000. I am concerned this body does not have full appreciation of these consequences and potential unintended consequences that will likely follow if we were to adopt the Feinstein amendment. I also believe it is premature to adopt this amendment because we have simply not had enough time to review the results of the modernization act. We have not received any reports from the CFTC detailing shortfalls in the regulatory authority conferred by the modernization act or recommendations requesting broader authority over derivatives. In fact, the CFTC had brought several major cases involving market manipulation since the passage of the modernization act. Congress should have more than a 2-year record before it decides to make rash but fundamental changes to legislation that was the product of so much deliberation a short time ago. Proponents of the Feinstein amendment argue that the collapse of Enron and the disruption of the California energy market are prime examples of the need for greater regulation of derivatives. This assertion is simply not true. Enron collapsed as a result of deceptive accounting practices involving special purpose entities and poor corporate governance practices that permitted abusive business practices. Congress addressed such abuses in last year's Sarbanes-Oxley Act. More importantly, Enron's derivative business was in operation prior to enactment of the Modernization Act and was one of the business lines that retained value for sale after the collapse when most others didn't. Further, FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, recently concluded a year-long review of potential manipulation of electric and natural gas prices in the Western markets. Although FERC did find market manipulation, it also concluded: Significant supply shortfalls and a fatally flawed market design were the root causes of the California market meltdown. In short, it was lack of energy supplies and poor State regulations that caused the disruption. I fear that the adoption of the Feinstein amendment could lead to uninformed and premature changes to the carefully considered provisions of the Modernization Act. I believe the Feinstein amendment proposes unnecessary regulatory measures and significantly undermines the legal certainty achieved in the Modernization Act. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the Feinstein amendment. The President's Working Group on Financial Markets, which is comprised of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Chairman of the CFTC, will be sending a letter today expressing its concerns with this amendment and urging Congress to carefully consider the potential unintended consequences of the amendment before acting. I intend to submit this letter for the Record when I receive it. I anticipate this letter will raise the same concerns that were raised in the working group's letter last year. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on Thursday, June 5, on rollcall vote No. 209, I voted yea. It was my intention then to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Mr. Thomas ``Buddy'' Morgan, the general manager of the Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board in Montgomery, AL. Mr. Morgan serves as their representative to the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, AMSA. On May 19, 2030, the members of AMSA elected Mr. Morgan to be the first president of the association from Alabama. Mr. Morgan was selected for his exemplary commitment and dedication to a clean-water community. AMSA's mission is to effectively maintain a strong leadership role in the development and implementation of scientifically sound, cost- effective, and environmentally friendly policies for the protection of the health of the public and the environment. In May of 2003, AMSA will celebrate 33 years of service to the clean-water community and the Nation. Mr. Morgan has worked on many projects on behalf of the city of Montgomery. His distinguished background includes his service on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Urban Wet Weather Flows Federal Advisory Committee and the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Federal Advisory Committee. He also served as chair of the Catoma Creek Watershed Committee and as a board member of the Alabama Clean Water Partnership. As a result of his involvement, Montgomery and surrounding areas of the Great State of Alabama are directly represented in national policy discussions. Mr. Morgan was instrumental in creating the Montgomery County Water Festival, which is now in its third year. As a result of his efforts, the water festival brings together local students for a day of activities and entertainment that instills in them a sense of environmental stewardship and awareness. Alabama is honored to be the home to Mr. Morgan. It is no secret that he is a man who, day in and day out, goes above and beyond the call of duty. He is to be commended for his extraordinary efforts on behalf of the Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board and his election to lead the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I would ask that the Chairman clarify the text of Section 333 in order to specifically exclude such payments.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee about the Committee's intent with respect to Section 333, the section entitled ``Denial of Deduction for Certain Fines, Penalties, and Other Amounts.'' As currently drafted, Section 333 eliminates tax deductions for amounts paid or incurred at the direction of a governmental entity in relation to the violation of any law or the investigation or inquiry into the potential violation of any law. Although I appreciate the Chairman's intent, I am concerned that this provision is drafted too broadly and applies to fees and compliance expenses that are mandated by regulators and that depository institutions must pay. For example, banks and thrifts are subject to routine, as well as special, examinations as part of supervisory reviews by State regulators, the FDIC, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of Thrift Supervision. The purpose of these supervisory examinations is to ensure that depository institutions are operating in a safe and sound manner and in full compliance with regulations. Institutions are then required to correct any deficiencies. Currently, Section 333 could be interpreted to eliminate the deductibility of these fees because they relate to examinations, which are, to some extent, inquiries into potential violations. Also, this Section could be interpreted to preclude tax deductions for remedial measures undertaken pursuant to a regulator's order, or to address concerns raised in an examination. As a result, we could be in a situation where the regulators are requiring audits or imposing other compliance-related costs, but the companies are prohibited from taking deductions for the required payments.

Mr. SHELBY. In addition we have received letters from Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board, Director Gilleran of the Office of Thrift Supervision and Chairman Powell of the FDIC expressing their concern regarding the breadth of Section 333. At this time, I would like to incorporate these letters into the Record. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your attention to an issue that is of great importance to many companies in a variety of industries. I look forward to working with the Chairman to amend the text of Section 333 in the conference report. syndication

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce my flat tax bill, S. 1040. Although I fully support the President's plan for economic growth, I believe that we can do even better. Like the President's plan, my bill eliminates the double taxation of dividends. However, instead of retaining the current progressive tax rates that impede economic growth, S. 1040 creates a single rate for all taxpayers--seventeen percent when the tax is fully implemented--and gives tax-free treatment to all savings and investment, not just dividends. A major reason why I support the flat tax is because it will place more money into the hands of hardworking Americans and will allow individuals--not the government--to decide how to best spend their money. Lowering taxes gives Americans more money for a large number of things such as monthly bills, insurance coverage, educational costs, prescription drugs, and family getaways. Lowering taxes also makes it easier for Americans to plan for their future through private savings. Although I strongly believe in the importance of private savings, my bill leaves the Social Security system intact and, in fact, provides seniors with more money by repealing the current tax on Social Security benefits. I have said many times before that our current progressive tax system is unfair in that it punishes success. The only way to ensure true fairness is to adopt a single tax rate for all taxpayers. Transitioning to such a tax will not only increase the fairness of the tax code, but it will also increase the incentives to work and thus boost economic growth. The flat tax is not only fairer than the current income tax, but it's also undeniably less complex. Under a flat tax, taxpayers would be able to fit their return on a form the size of a post card. Rather than spending hours pouring over convoluted IRS forms, or resorting to professional tax assistance, the flat tax allows taxpayers to determine their taxes quickly and easily. Paying taxes may never be a pleasant experience, but at least under a flat tax it wouldn't be mind-boggling. I fully realize that the bill I am introducing today is a monumental shift from the current tax code. However, we must not allow the enormity of the task to deter us from enacting better, more efficient tax laws. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce my flat tax bill, S. 1040. Although I fully support the President's plan for economic growth, I believe that we can do even better. Like the President's plan, my bill eliminates the double taxation of dividends. However, instead of retaining the current progressive tax rates that impede economic growth, S. 1040 creates a single rate for all taxpayers--seventeen percent when the tax is fully implemented--and gives tax-free treatment to all savings and investment, not just dividends. A major reason why I support the flat tax is because it will place more money into the hands of hardworking Americans and will allow individuals--not the government--to decide how to best spend their money. Lowering taxes gives Americans more money for a large number of things such as monthly bills, insurance coverage, educational costs, prescription drugs, and family getaways. Lowering taxes also makes it easier for Americans to plan for their future through private savings. Although I strongly believe in the importance of private savings, my bill leaves the Social Security system intact and, in fact, provides seniors with more money by repealing the current tax on Social Security benefits. I have said many times before that our current progressive tax system is unfair in that it punishes success. The only way to ensure true fairness is to adopt a single tax rate for all taxpayers. Transitioning to such a tax will not only increase the fairness of the tax code, but it will also increase the incentives to work and thus boost economic growth. The flat tax is not only fairer than the current income tax, but it's also undeniably less complex. Under a flat tax, taxpayers would be able to fit their return on a form the size of a post card. Rather than spending hours pouring over convoluted IRS forms, or resorting to professional tax assistance, the flat tax allows taxpayers to determine their taxes quickly and easily. Paying taxes may never be a pleasant experience, but at least under a flat tax it wouldn't be mind-boggling. I fully realize that the bill I am introducing today is a monumental shift from the current tax code. However, we must not allow the enormity of the task to deter us from enacting better, more efficient tax laws. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Older Americans Tax Fairness Act of 2003. My bill would completely eliminate the unjust taxation of Social Security benefits once and for all. The underlying premise of my legislation is simple: Social Security benefits were never intended to be taxed. At its inception and continuing on for the next fifty years, Social Security benefits were exempt from taxation. Budgetary shortfalls in 1984 and 1993, however, led to the taxation of these benefits. Because of the rising cost of living, many of our seniors are forced to work past age 65. To these Americans, every penny counts in determining whether they are able to pay for food, heating, and healthcare. However, by taxing Social Security benefits, we make it increasingly impossible for millions of older Americans to make ends meet. In effect, then, taxation of Social Security benefits forces many Americans to endure stressful situations in what should be the golden years of their lives. Taxation of Social Security benefits is also wrong because it changes the rules in the middle of the game. When seniors contributed to Social Security through the payment of payroll taxes, they did so with the understanding that they would one day receive those benefits tax-free. Unfortunately, because of runaway spending, many in the government have viewed Social Security taxation as a way to make up the shortfall between Federal spending and revenue. Such a decision was wrong then and it is even more wrong now as seniors face rising living costs. In addition to being fundamentally unfair, I believe that taxing Social Security benefits once seniors pass certain income thresholds discourages them from working. I firmly believe that senior citizens add a wealth of knowledge and experience to the workplace. As such, we must make sure that our American workforce is not deprived of these valuable assets. Our laws should encourage older Americans with a desire to work to continue contributing to our society. Unfortunately, our laws do just the opposite. Every year my office receives hundreds of letters and calls from older Americans throughout the country and Alabama describing the hardship that Social Security taxation has placed on their lives. The solution to this situation is simple--repeal the unfair taxation of these benefits. I therefore urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents and join me in support of my bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Older Americans Tax Fairness Act of 2003. My bill would completely eliminate the unjust taxation of Social Security benefits once and for all. The underlying premise of my legislation is simple: Social Security benefits were never intended to be taxed. At its inception and continuing on for the next fifty years, Social Security benefits were exempt from taxation. Budgetary shortfalls in 1984 and 1993, however, led to the taxation of these benefits. Because of the rising cost of living, many of our seniors are forced to work past age 65. To these Americans, every penny counts in determining whether they are able to pay for food, heating, and healthcare. However, by taxing Social Security benefits, we make it increasingly impossible for millions of older Americans to make ends meet. In effect, then, taxation of Social Security benefits forces many Americans to endure stressful situations in what should be the golden years of their lives. Taxation of Social Security benefits is also wrong because it changes the rules in the middle of the game. When seniors contributed to Social Security through the payment of payroll taxes, they did so with the understanding that they would one day receive those benefits tax-free. Unfortunately, because of runaway spending, many in the government have viewed Social Security taxation as a way to make up the shortfall between Federal spending and revenue. Such a decision was wrong then and it is even more wrong now as seniors face rising living costs. In addition to being fundamentally unfair, I believe that taxing Social Security benefits once seniors pass certain income thresholds discourages them from working. I firmly believe that senior citizens add a wealth of knowledge and experience to the workplace. As such, we must make sure that our American workforce is not deprived of these valuable assets. Our laws should encourage older Americans with a desire to work to continue contributing to our society. Unfortunately, our laws do just the opposite. Every year my office receives hundreds of letters and calls from older Americans throughout the country and Alabama describing the hardship that Social Security taxation has placed on their lives. The solution to this situation is simple--repeal the unfair taxation of these benefits. I therefore urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents and join me in support of my bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Dr. Betsy (Dawson) Rogers, a teacher from Leeds, AL. On April 30, 2003, in the Rose Garden at the White House, President George W. Bush presented Dr. Rogers with the esteemed National Teacher of the Year award. Dr. Rogers was selected for this honor from among the best teachers in the Nation based on her compassion for the children she teaches. Dr. Rogers, a teacher of first and second grade students at Leeds Elementary School, began teaching in 1985. She was compelled by the needs of many of her students, some from less fortunate families just needing someone to encourage them to strive to their greatest potential. Dr. Rogers invests her time and energy in everyone of her students. Day in and day out, she goes above and beyond the call of duty, because for her students to achieve their greatest potential, some may need individual attention starting from long before the school day begins and lasting until hours after the last bell rings. Dr. Rogers has had many opportunities to teach at most any school of her choice. Yet, she has humbly chosen to stay at Leeds Elementary School, knowing that her compassion is best put to use by these children who need it the most. She loves everything about teaching, because Dr. Rogers is shaping the future for each child who comes into her classroom. She doesn't take this responsibility lightly, and for that she is to be commended. I am grateful to Dr. Rogers and teachers all over Alabama and the Nation just like her, who understand the immense responsibility they have as educators. Dr. Rogers is blessed with an incredibly supportive family. Her parents, Elenor and Dick Dawson, are friends of mine from Birmingham, and I know they are very proud of their daughter's fine accomplishment. Her two sons, Rick and Alan, have benefitted tremendously from her gifted ability to teach. And her brothers, Richard and Eric, are close to her and celebrate with her on this important award. Alabama is honored to be home to Dr. Rogers, and I hope that when my grandchildren enter elementary school they will have the fortunate experience to have a teacher just like her.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on July 31, 2002, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to create a one-size-fits-all template for electric markets referred to as ``standard market design,'' SMD. The SMD rule would bring about numerous sweeping changes, the degree and consequences of which are still being assessed. The proposed rule would require customers to pay for transmission facility upgrades caused by new generators, even if the customer does not need or use the power from those generators. FERC's proposal would also usurp State authority to obligate utilities to serve customers, set generation reserve margins, centrally control generation dispatch, and set rates for retail transmission service. FERC's proposed rulemaking will effectively eliminate a State's ability to make decisions on issues specific to their State. Such sweeping changes to the energy industry should only be made after careful consideration of all potential consequences. After hearing these concerns, FERC promised a white paper to speak to the many concerns of myself and many others. On April 28, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released its long-awaited white paper on Wholesale Power Markets and Standard Market Design. I and others had hoped that the release of that paper would signal a shift in the approach that the Commission has been taking with respect to the ``federalization'' of electricity regulation and markets. Disappointingly, despite some modest changes in approach, the Commission and Chairman Pat Wood have decided to move away from a partnership with the States toward Federal domination of the electricity system and electricity regulation. In the document, the Commission reasserts its authority to regulate the terms and conditions of retail transmission, mandates the formation of Regional Transmission Organizations, and limits State authority to protect existing native load customers from the loss of transmission rights. The paper promises more ``technical conferences'' and consultation with the States, but does not change the premise upon which the Commission's Standard Market Design, ``SMD'', Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rests--that the States and regions serve only as adjuncts to the Commission as it devises new wholesale market rules that directly impinge upon retail markets. In light of the Commission's white paper and the Senate's intention of quickly addressing energy policy, my colleagues and I present legislation today to ensure the concerns of my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues are addressed. This crucial legislation will ensure that States maintain their jurisdiction over retail utilities, that native load customers can be assured of reliability of service, that customers are not forced to socialize the cost of new transmission developed in their area but intended for other regions, and finally the legislation will prohibit the FERC from implementing its current SMD rule nor any rule that is of similar substance.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on July 31, 2002, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to create a one-size-fits-all template for electric markets referred to as ``standard market design,'' SMD. The SMD rule would bring about numerous sweeping changes, the degree and consequences of which are still being assessed. The proposed rule would require customers to pay for transmission facility upgrades caused by new generators, even if the customer does not need or use the power from those generators. FERC's proposal would also usurp State authority to obligate utilities to serve customers, set generation reserve margins, centrally control generation dispatch, and set rates for retail transmission service. FERC's proposed rulemaking will effectively eliminate a State's ability to make decisions on issues specific to their State. Such sweeping changes to the energy industry should only be made after careful consideration of all potential consequences. After hearing these concerns, FERC promised a white paper to speak to the many concerns of myself and many others. On April 28, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released its long-awaited white paper on Wholesale Power Markets and Standard Market Design. I and others had hoped that the release of that paper would signal a shift in the approach that the Commission has been taking with respect to the ``federalization'' of electricity regulation and markets. Disappointingly, despite some modest changes in approach, the Commission and Chairman Pat Wood have decided to move away from a partnership with the States toward Federal domination of the electricity system and electricity regulation. In the document, the Commission reasserts its authority to regulate the terms and conditions of retail transmission, mandates the formation of Regional Transmission Organizations, and limits State authority to protect existing native load customers from the loss of transmission rights. The paper promises more ``technical conferences'' and consultation with the States, but does not change the premise upon which the Commission's Standard Market Design, ``SMD'', Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rests--that the States and regions serve only as adjuncts to the Commission as it devises new wholesale market rules that directly impinge upon retail markets. In light of the Commission's white paper and the Senate's intention of quickly addressing energy policy, my colleagues and I present legislation today to ensure the concerns of my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues are addressed. This crucial legislation will ensure that States maintain their jurisdiction over retail utilities, that native load customers can be assured of reliability of service, that customers are not forced to socialize the cost of new transmission developed in their area but intended for other regions, and finally the legislation will prohibit the FERC from implementing its current SMD rule nor any rule that is of similar substance.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise today in support of H.R. 258, the Five Cent Coin Design Continuity Act. This legislation will allow the U.S. Mint to move forward with a nickel redesign to commemorate the bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The bill will also allow the Mint to observe Thomas Jefferson's 260th birthday and honor his many contributions to the founding of our great Nation. I would like to commend Senators Allen and Johnson for their support and commitment to this outstanding effort to honor our history. Thomas Jefferson's visionary decision to make the Louisiana Purchase opened the North American continent to the expansion of the frontier. Lewis and Clark's adventurous spirit provided the example for many brave pioneers to follow as they explored and settled west of the Mississippi. Thomas Jefferson's foresight and the courage of the members of the Lewis and Clark expedition presaged a legendary time in our Nation's history that emboldened the American spirit. This period in history truly merits commemoration on our nickel coin. It is important to celebrate these accomplishments and recognize the achievements of individuals who have had such an impact on our Nation's history. I am pleased that the Banking Committee and the Senate could move expeditiously to pass this legislation and I thank Senators Allen and Johnson for their support.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend, William Canary, of Montgomery, AL. Bill Canary was recently name president of the Business Council of Alabama. While he now calls Montgomery, Al, home, Bill is a native of New York and attended the State University of New York at Oneonta. He also holds a juris doctorate degree from the Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center at Touro College. Bill came to BCA from the American Trucking Association, the national trade and safety organization of the U.S. trucking industry. He began his career at ATA nearly a decade ago, serving as counselor to the AT president and CEO, Thomas J. Donohue. Over the years, he served ATA in various capacities including political advisor to the president and senior vice president for State, Federation and Intergovernmental Affairs. In 2001, the ATA board of directors named him their president and CEO. Prior to his service at the ATA, Bill served as a Special Assistant to President George H.W. Bush for Intergovernmental Affairs. From January 1989 through June 1991, Bill served the White House as the President's liaison to local elected officials and mayors throughout the Nation. Bill has also served as chief of staff for the Republican National Committee and as national political director for the Committee to Re- Elect President Bush. During the 2000 Republican National Convention he served as a senior advisor to the co-chairman, Andrew Card, currently chief of staff to President George W. Bush. He is the coauthor of the public research product ``The Alabama Poll,'' and is a writer, commentator, and political analyst for several Alabama television programs. In 2001, I was proud to recommend Bill's wife Leura to serve as the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Leura has served in this position with distinction. Bill and Leura have a daughter, Margaret, and a son, Will. Bill Canary is a good friend and a beloved family man. I offer him my congratulations and best wishes in his new role as president of BCA.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Breaux amendment for a variety of reasons, but I will limit my remarks to the provision dealing with increased funding for mass transit security. I commend the Senator from Louisiana for bringing attention to this important issue. While I believe that transit security is an issue deserving of increased investment, the approach taken in the amendment is not one that I can support at this time. Existing Federal transit law already requires that a percentage of formula funds be used for safety and security needs. The Federal Transit Administration has made transit security a priority. FTA has already conducted assessments for the 33 largest systems and has provided a ``tool box'' to help systems develop their own individualized security programs. Further, FTA has developed and distributed a checklist of the most important measures that transit agencies should implement to ensure that their systems are as secure as possible. FTA has made it a priority to work with agencies to assist in implementation of those measures. Mass transit is perhaps one of the most difficult modes of transportation to secure. By its very nature, transit must operate in an open environment in order to provide its customers with mobility and access. We need to carefully consider how we develop transit security measures to ensure that we do not risk stranding those who depend on transit for their day-to-day mobility needs. As chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I am cognizant of the unique need for further analysis of transit security issues. As the committee reauthorizes the Federal transit program this Congress, we intend to make the issue of transit security a high priority. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Breaux amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by the Senator from Arizona, an amendment of which I am a cosponsor. This amendment, if accepted, will require the Department of State to produce a report within 60 days following the termination of offensive military operations in Iraq detailing everything that is known about that country's weapons of mass destruction programs, as well as about its ability to field conventional forces after a decade of sanctions. Most importantly, it will require that the report in question provide a thorough description of the means by which Iraq acquired the designs, technologies, components, and systems with which to develop and construct weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. Finally, the report required by this amendment will include a discussion of the effectiveness of the unilateral and multilateral agreements designed to prevent Iraq's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. This is not intended as an indictment of these agreements. On the contrary, they were an essential component of the structure needed to try to contain Iraqi aggression and impede its ability to acquire such weapons. Rather, it is intended to educate us as to the ways in which rogue governments seek to manipulate and undermine sanctions regimes and, in some instances, exploit the somewhat mercantilist tendencies of some nations to look the other way when logic otherwise dictates caution. American blood is being shed in the deserts and in the towns and villages of Iraq for the principal purpose of ensuring that a brutal dictator is denied the ability to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against his neighbors, against U.S. interests, and against the American homeland. The reasons that we arrived at this point in time are many and are varied. Suffice to say, however, that vitally important lessons will be drawn from this conflict, and from the period leading up to it. Among those lessons will be ways in which Iraq was able to amass the capabilities that it possessed at the time of Operation Desert Storm, and that it was able to retain and accumulate in the decade since. We know, for instance, that it succeeded in exploiting oil-for-food income for illicit purposes. What we need to better understand and to illuminate for the public, however, is the extent to which others facilitated such transactions. As the remains of Americans killed in combat and in combat-related accidents return home for burial, and as the images of innocent Iraqi victims fills the world's television screens, a reckoning will increasingly be in order. This war is a terrible necessity. I fully support the President of the United States in his decision to bring a decade-long problem that threatens our national interest to a definitive conclusion. As the elected representatives of the American public, however, it is incumbent upon us to prepare to focus our attention on the history that brought us to where we are today. Only through a thorough examination of the ways in which Saddam Hussein was able to reach the stage where we were compelled to bring the full weight of our national power to bear upon him can we hope to prevent a recurrence elsewhere in the world. I urge support for this amendment. It is about knowledge. It is about learning from the past. It is about helping to avoid traveling the road to war again in the future because we failed to keep our moral bearings in the present. Vote yes on the Kyl amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Bond which I am pleased to cosponsor along with a number of my colleagues. This bipartisan amendment would increase highway spending to $255 billion and transit spending to $56.5 billion over the next 6 years. This amendment is essential to provide for continued growth in the Federal investment in mass transit and highway infrastructure across the country. Together, these increases will ensure that much needed resources are in place to help meet our Nation's staggering surface transportation needs. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, expires on September 30, 2003, and as we move forward, it is important that we maintain our commitment to improving the nation's transportation systems. I believe it is critical that we invest significantly in transportation funding in order to address the growing demand for new and safer roads and new and better transit systems for all communities. Our transportation systems connect America. Continued investment in these areas helps to relieve congestion, stimulate the economy, improve productivity and generally enhance the quality and safety of our highways and transit systems. Federal, State and local investment in our nations' transportation infrastructure is vitally important to a growing economy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated that each $1 billion invested in transportation creates 47,500 jobs. Additionally, the Federal investment that we are proposing today will leverage State and local dollars, as well as generate significant private investment in local communities all over this country. This amendment provides additional resources necessary to maintain the gains that have been made in mass transportation and highway infrastructure development. Recognizing these benefits, since 1982, transit has been allocated 20 percent of all new surface transportation funding. This amendment will assure that this balance in funding between highways and mass transit is continued. Under this amendment, in fiscal year 2009, transit would be allocated 20 percent of total amount of highway and transit funding. This is particularly important because we have seen evidence that improvements in mass transit have stimulated economic growth and enhanced the quality of life for millions of Americans. This amendment provides funding to assure that the highway and transit infrastructure is in place to allow our economy to continue to grow. I urge my colleagues to support adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend, a beloved family man, a successful business man, and a treasure to the State of Alabama. Winton `Red' Blount, a native of Union Springs, AL passed on October 24, 2002. He was one of those people who everyone should emulate, because he took advantage of everything life had to offer--having a loving family, running a successful business, standing up for justice during the Civil Rights movement, enjoying the arts, and pursuing civil service. It is my hope, that in this tribute, I can draw a bit of a picture to describe the kind of life that Red Blount lived. During the 1960s civil rights movements, the State of Alabama was home to some tumultuous times. When Governor George Wallace blocked integration into the University of Alabama, Red Blount calmly and constructively worked with U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Governor Wallace to keep the peace and allow African-American students into the University. Blount, at that time, served as a member of the University's Board of Trustees, and, more importantly, served as a voice of reason during a time when reasonable voices were few and far between. As a businessman, Blount was straight-forward, hard working, and honest in his practices. He founded Blount Brothers and quickly developed a reputation for delivering products on time and without unexpected costs. Blount's company can be credited with building the launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, FL, which sent the first space flight to the moon. Blount Brothers also built the Nation's first ballistic missile site, the New Orleans Superdome, and international projects including King Saud University, near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Since I can remember, Red was a dedicated civil servant and a devoted member of the Republican Party. Known as Mr. Republican, he wanted to make a difference in Alabama and across the Nation. In 1960, Red headed up then-Vice President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful bid for the presidency as his southeastern campaign chairman. In 1968, Red became president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and then he went on to serve as President Richard Nixon's Postmaster General. In this capacity, he advocated for and implemented massive reform, making the postal service less political and more efficient. Red even threw his hat into the ring for a bid to the U.S. Senate in 1972. Unfortunately, he lost, but there is no question that he would've made a great Senator. Among Red Blount's many business and political achievements, having a family was his most important accomplishment. His five children are grown and successful in their own right, and there is no question that Blount instilled a strong work ethic into them and fostered their ability to succeed in whatever they chose to do. Blount's family expanded when he married his second wife, Carolyn Self Varner Blount, and he became step father to her two children. They enjoyed gathering at the holidays with all the children and grandchildren in the extended Blount family. One of the things that Alabamians will remember most about Red Blount was his love of the arts. In 1982, Red discovered that the Alabama Shakespeare Festival, of which his wife, Carolyn served on the board, was very much in debt. He was able to assist them with their financial difficulties by building a theater on the 250-acre grounds behind his home. This became Montgomery's Blount Cultural Park, and the theater was named for his wife. The theater grew with the support of State grants, but mostly because of the investment that Red and Carolyn made in it. They made nearly $15 million in donations of art work, which encouraged the Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts, which was looking to change locations, to move to the park grounds. The park continued to grow with gardens and an amphitheater, and Blount expanded the land by buying more acres. He made contributions totaling $21.5 million to the Alabama Shakespeare Festival, which remains the single-largest gift ever given to a regional theater in the country. Blount's philanthropic heart turned Montgomery into a leading cultural center. Had Red and Carolyn not made the financial and creative investment, the theater, museum, and park would not be what it is today. They helped to create a priceless treasure for the area, encouraging the young and old to experience the arts. There aren't too many people in the world who loved life as much as Red did. He was the kind of person we all want to be, and the State of Alabama is a better place for having Red Blount as part of our history. We are all grateful to Red and his family for giving so much of themselves, and allowing Red to leave us with a wonderful legacy we will never forget.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, in accordance with Rule XXVI.2. of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, as unanimously adopted by the committee on January 30, 2003.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I will be glad to.

Mr. SHELBY. I would just note for the Senator from Utah that the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee has already allotted $666,000 for this project in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.

Mr. SHELBY. I thank my colleague for making me aware of his interest in this project. I know you recognize that we have a great many requests for funding and we are working hard to provide the appropriate levels for each one within budget constraints. I will be mindful of the Senator's interest in this project during conference deliberations with the House.

Mr. SHELBY. I would be glad to.

Mr. SHELBY. I note for the Senator from Utah that the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee has already allotted $666,000 for this project in the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations bill.