A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation amending the Constitution to permit direct popular elections for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States.

I am mindful of the fact that altering the text of one of our country's most sacred documents requires careful thought, study and debate. But for me the status quo raises too many problems and questions.

The Electoral College is an archaic system. It may have been suitable during the founding years of the Republic. But it is hardly appropriate for the 21st century modern democracy that we have become.

Fundamental fairness dictates that we have a single, nationwide count of popular votes. Hopefully my proposal represents the starting point for how best to structure a system to accomplish that.

My approach is simple: the President is elected through a direct popular vote of the American people. Every American's vote counts the same, whether they live in Florida, Maine, California, or Nebraska. All the complexities of the current electoral college system are swept away. With my legislation the winner of the presidency is the individual who tallies the most votes cast in the election.

For those who believe the Electoral College is a reasonable basis for electing the President, consider the following: would a foreign country today, creating a new democratic election system from scratch, rely on the U.S. Electoral College as a model? Not likely.

Let me begin by offering a few facts and observations about the current system: the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose 39 States in a general election but still win the Presidency; the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose a general election, by 10 million popular votes or more, yet still be elected President; in a recent presidential election a candidate received nearly 20 million popular votes, roughly 19 percent of all votes cast, but that translated into 0 electoral votes; the Electoral College allows an elector to refuse to represent the majority of popular votes cast for a presidential candidate in his State's election--he can arbitrarily switch sides and throw his lot in with an alternative candidate, which has happened nine times since 1820; when a presidential election produces a 269 to 269 tie in electoral votes between candidates, the President is chosen through a ``contingent'' election conducted by the House of Representatives with each state's delegation casting a single vote--which unfairly grants equal status to California, whose population is 35.5 million, and Wyoming, whose population is 500,000; making matters worse, when such a ``contingent election'' occurs, House members are not bound to support the candidate who won the popular vote in the State they collectively represent--they are free to vote as they see fit; the two ``constant'' or ``senatorial'' electors automatically assigned to each State give less populous states a disproportionate advantage in the Electoral College vote count compared to States with more sizable populations; the winner-take-all concept for awarding a State's electoral votes disenfranchises all voters in a State who supported a losing candidate in that State; and finally, the Electoral College undermines national campaigns by causing presidential candidates to focus on a handful of contested States and ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other States.

The political and substantive utility of this system, full of pitfalls and loopholes, is very hard to discern. Voter apathy is a function of a system signaling to people that their vote does not count, and the Electoral College manages that in spades.

Now, I don't take this effort on lightly, because we have amended the Constitution a mere twenty-seven times since the founding of the nation. But as a matter of practical necessity, fairness and common sense, we need to consider the inherent inequities involved with the Electoral College.

My hope is that we can treat this in a bipartisan and nonparochial manner that benefits the whole of the country. I appreciate that states and regions are affected differently, California among them, but my motivations derive from improving the American federalist system in a way that eliminates undue consequences.

I have not been solicited by any particular interest group, constituency, or voting bloc to amend the Constitution. At bottom, I believe this is a matter of serious import. Good public policy demands that we give this subject sustained attention and I intend to do that through the Senate hearing process.

There was a time, of course, when the Electoral College adequately represented the voting needs of the country. In the 1780s there were no formal political parties as such, no experience with conducting national campaigns for office, and no lack of mistrust among States large and small about protecting their interests.

The Founding Fathers understood: first, the social, economic and political disconnectedness that existed among the States; second, the federalist system of governance was only beginning to take root; third, the dearth of news and communications networks across the country made national campaigning difficult; and fourth, the likelihood that a local ``favorite son'' or regional candidate would prevail in a national presidential election.

This combination of factors justified an indirect election of the President through a College of Electors.

Inimical reasons existed for going this route as well. Had the Framers of the Constitution adopted the one man, one vote system, Northern States that permitted blacks to vote in popular national elections could have exercised greater influence in electing the President than southern states. And States that independently extended rights of suffrage to women also could have gained an advantage.

The 15th Amendment in 1870 extending voting rights to Black men and many years later women gaining those same rights laid these issues to rest. With the obstacles of racism and sexism now gone as reasons justifying the creation, of the Electoral College, the puzzlement over why we haven't updated the presidential election system only continues.

Regardless, as a means to reconcile the interests of State governments and the Federal government, of northern and southern states, of majority and minority interests groups, and to let all these voices be heard come election time, the Electoral College was considered a just compromise. Its basic form was adopted during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Political events occurred soon thereafter, though, prompting passage of the 12th Amendment and the first major changes in the Electoral College system. The presidential election of 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, ended in a tie of electoral votes, causing the House of Representatives to break the deadlock through a ``contingent election''. A messy political imbroglio ensued. It was only after many rounds of negotiations that Jefferson won the Presidency.

Importantly, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1804 to streamline the process of contingent elections. I would observe that passage of the 12th Amendment confirmed that the Electoral College system was, and remains, appropriately subject to change.

Legislators in 1804 did not delay in amending the Constitution for reasons of fairness and practicality, and nor should we in 2004 fail to address the imperfect design that thwarts the will of the American public.

Even with the 12th Amendment in place, the Electoral College managed to turn logic on its head in presidential elections throughout the 19th century. Minority presidents, so-called for winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote, were elected three times--John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

And in 2000 the same problem re-surfaced, the fourth time in our Nation's short history, with Vice President Al Gore edging George Bush by 537,895 popular votes, but losing the electoral college by a mere 5 votes.

The Nation can be thankful, frankly, that we have only had disputed elections in just these four instances. A shift of a few thousand votes from one candidate to another in past presidential elections could have ordained similar disarray. Some noteworthy examples include: despite losing the popular vote by the sizable margin of 1.7 million votes, Gerald Ford in 1976 needed only 5,559 more votes in Ohio and 3,687 in Hawaii to reach the magical number of 270 electoral votes and he would have been returned to the White House.

And had California, Illinois and Ohio posited 29,000 more votes in Thomas Dewey's column, he lost the over popular vote by a wide margin, 2.1 million, in 1948, the face of history may have been changed forever with Harry Truman never returning to the White House.

And most recently, a shift of a mere 68,000 votes in Ohio from President George Bush's column to John Kerry would have allowed the Democrat to

win the electoral vote count, 271 to 267, and the Presidency, even though Bush enjoyed a sizable 3.5 million margin in popular votes cast.

According to some estimates, we have had no fewer than 22 near misses, all of which could have ended up as contentious as the 2000 contest. We are tempting fate by ignoring this problem: sooner or later a dramatic incongruity will occur between an electoral vote winner contrasted against a different popular vote winner whose margin of victory runs into the millions.

Electoral College anomalies don't end with disparities between the electoral and popular vote winners. The phenomenon of the ``Faithless Elector'' reflects a further structural defect in the Electoral College System.

History shows that electors have not been faithful to the presidential and vice presidential tickets winning the most votes in their respective states. They may initially pledge to the winning candidate, but enjoy individual discretion to change their vote when electoral votes are formally counted.

Contemporary examples are as follows: in 1968, Dr. Lloyd Bailey, a North Carolina elector initially pledged to Republican Richard Nixon, switched his vote to George Wallace of the American Independent Party; in 1972, Roger MacBride, a Virginia elector for Richard Nixon switched his vote to John Hospers of the Libertarian Party; in 1976, Mike Padden, a Washington elector for Gerald Ford voted for Ronald Reagan; in 1988, Margarat Leach, a West Virginia elector for Michael Dukakis, voted instead for Lloyd Bentsen, an unusual decision to exchange the positions of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates; and in 2000, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a District of Columbia elector for Democrat Albert Gore Jr., cast a blank ballot.

These arbitrary decisions did not affect the outcome in each of those presidential election years. But they all flouted the electoral will of the people.

The fact that such capricious switching is permitted, irrespective of the outcomes of the popular vote results in the states in question, is cause for great concern. What might happen if electors break their pledges to a particular candidate en masse? Is that possible and legally enforceable? The answer appears to be yes.

In this vein, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to envision three or more candidates splitting the electoral tally of votes such that none received the requisite majority of 270 to win the White House.

In that situation, what prevents one of the candidates directing his electors to another candidate, before the formal meeting of the Electors to count and certify the electoral votes occurs in the month following the November election, to allow him to gain the necessary majority of 270 in exchange for policy concessions or worse, a massive cash payment? Would that kind of corrupt transaction be allowed? What element of the current Electoral College system prevents such an unfortunate outcome?

This may not be likely, given our strong two party system, but it is possible. Yet we tolerate the risk of it happening, year after year, because we assume it will never occur. Someday we may regret our indecision to fix what we know is wrong with the Electoral College system.

Twenty-five years ago in the 96th Congress, a majority of the Senate voted 51 to 48 to support abolishing the Electoral College and replace it with direct popular elections. That legislation, S.J. Res. 26, fell short of the necessary two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment, but I am encouraged that more than half the body supported the concept.

A few years before that, the House voted overwhelmingly in the 91st Congress, by a vote of 338 to 70, for the direct popular election of the President. Alas, the effort fell short in the Senate.

I am prepared to press the case for this idea, on a bipartisan basis, through extensive committee deliberations and onto the Senate floor. The time has come for the Senate to reconsider the essential building blocks of our democracy.

Some might claim that offering a constitutional amendment is a political gambit to overcome my own State's weak position in the Electoral College voting system. It is a fact that smaller States, such as South Dakota, Wyoming, and others, maintain disproportionate influence in the process compared to California.

I would respond to that as follows: my approach does equate the vote of a Californian, Rhode Islander and South Dakotan as being equal. But it also means that millions of votes cast for Republican candidates in future presidential races in my home state will have meaning and value. Their votes will count for something.

In the 2000 race, George Bush received over 4.5 million votes in California. That should have counted for something--but it did not. All 54 of California's electoral votes went to Vice President Al Gore.

Given the domination of Democratic presidential candidates in California in the modern era, it is clear that my party would not benefit from a direct popular election in California.

But for me, this is about principle over politics. It is the right thing to do, even if it gives renewed life to Republican presidential candidates in my home State.

As it stands now, California is not a place where Republican and Democratic presidential candidates genuinely compete for votes. They come to California to fill their campaign coffers but take a pass with real voters. That needs to change--for California, yes, but also for New York, Texas, for Utah and for so many other States in the country.

I have tried to understand the counterarguments to a nationwide popular vote. They reflect a desire to empower both regional and rural interests, and deny major population centers from having excessive power. I appreciate the notion that we don't want clusters of cities and particular regions where the greatest numbers of Americans reside, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, to dominate the electoral landscape.

At the same time, a presidential candidate's priorities, record and vision for the country will determine how far he goes in the nominating and general election process. Stitching together a cross section of American voters, who represent different economic and social backgrounds, professions, parts of the country, religious faiths, and so much more holds the key to attaining a winning plurality or majority of votes in presidential races.

I would contend that it is up to the candidates to appeal to the broadest group of Americans but to level the playing field in doing so. In that process each American's vote, regardless of where that person lives in the country, should be counted equally.

Right now, that is just not the case. Our system is not undemocratic, but it is imperfect, and we have the power to do something about it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Electoral College Abolition Resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation amending the Constitution to permit direct popular elections for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States.

I am mindful of the fact that altering the text of one of our country's most sacred documents requires careful thought, study and debate. But for me the status quo raises too many problems and questions.

The Electoral College is an archaic system. It may have been suitable during the founding years of the Republic. But it is hardly appropriate for the 21st century modern democracy that we have become.

Fundamental fairness dictates that we have a single, nationwide count of popular votes. Hopefully my proposal represents the starting point for how best to structure a system to accomplish that.

My approach is simple: the President is elected through a direct popular vote of the American people. Every American's vote counts the same, whether they live in Florida, Maine, California, or Nebraska. All the complexities of the current electoral college system are swept away. With my legislation the winner of the presidency is the individual who tallies the most votes cast in the election.

For those who believe the Electoral College is a reasonable basis for electing the President, consider the following: would a foreign country today, creating a new democratic election system from scratch, rely on the U.S. Electoral College as a model? Not likely.

Let me begin by offering a few facts and observations about the current system: the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose 39 States in a general election but still win the Presidency; the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose a general election, by 10 million popular votes or more, yet still be elected President; in a recent presidential election a candidate received nearly 20 million popular votes, roughly 19 percent of all votes cast, but that translated into 0 electoral votes; the Electoral College allows an elector to refuse to represent the majority of popular votes cast for a presidential candidate in his State's election--he can arbitrarily switch sides and throw his lot in with an alternative candidate, which has happened nine times since 1820; when a presidential election produces a 269 to 269 tie in electoral votes between candidates, the President is chosen through a ``contingent'' election conducted by the House of Representatives with each state's delegation casting a single vote--which unfairly grants equal status to California, whose population is 35.5 million, and Wyoming, whose population is 500,000; making matters worse, when such a ``contingent election'' occurs, House members are not bound to support the candidate who won the popular vote in the State they collectively represent--they are free to vote as they see fit; the two ``constant'' or ``senatorial'' electors automatically assigned to each State give less populous states a disproportionate advantage in the Electoral College vote count compared to States with more sizable populations; the winner-take-all concept for awarding a State's electoral votes disenfranchises all voters in a State who supported a losing candidate in that State; and finally, the Electoral College undermines national campaigns by causing presidential candidates to focus on a handful of contested States and ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other States.

The political and substantive utility of this system, full of pitfalls and loopholes, is very hard to discern. Voter apathy is a function of a system signaling to people that their vote does not count, and the Electoral College manages that in spades.

Now, I don't take this effort on lightly, because we have amended the Constitution a mere twenty-seven times since the founding of the nation. But as a matter of practical necessity, fairness and common sense, we need to consider the inherent inequities involved with the Electoral College.

My hope is that we can treat this in a bipartisan and nonparochial manner that benefits the whole of the country. I appreciate that states and regions are affected differently, California among them, but my motivations derive from improving the American federalist system in a way that eliminates undue consequences.

I have not been solicited by any particular interest group, constituency, or voting bloc to amend the Constitution. At bottom, I believe this is a matter of serious import. Good public policy demands that we give this subject sustained attention and I intend to do that through the Senate hearing process.

There was a time, of course, when the Electoral College adequately represented the voting needs of the country. In the 1780s there were no formal political parties as such, no experience with conducting national campaigns for office, and no lack of mistrust among States large and small about protecting their interests.

The Founding Fathers understood: first, the social, economic and political disconnectedness that existed among the States; second, the federalist system of governance was only beginning to take root; third, the dearth of news and communications networks across the country made national campaigning difficult; and fourth, the likelihood that a local ``favorite son'' or regional candidate would prevail in a national presidential election.

This combination of factors justified an indirect election of the President through a College of Electors.

Inimical reasons existed for going this route as well. Had the Framers of the Constitution adopted the one man, one vote system, Northern States that permitted blacks to vote in popular national elections could have exercised greater influence in electing the President than southern states. And States that independently extended rights of suffrage to women also could have gained an advantage.

The 15th Amendment in 1870 extending voting rights to Black men and many years later women gaining those same rights laid these issues to rest. With the obstacles of racism and sexism now gone as reasons justifying the creation, of the Electoral College, the puzzlement over why we haven't updated the presidential election system only continues.

Regardless, as a means to reconcile the interests of State governments and the Federal government, of northern and southern states, of majority and minority interests groups, and to let all these voices be heard come election time, the Electoral College was considered a just compromise. Its basic form was adopted during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Political events occurred soon thereafter, though, prompting passage of the 12th Amendment and the first major changes in the Electoral College system. The presidential election of 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, ended in a tie of electoral votes, causing the House of Representatives to break the deadlock through a ``contingent election''. A messy political imbroglio ensued. It was only after many rounds of negotiations that Jefferson won the Presidency.

Importantly, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1804 to streamline the process of contingent elections. I would observe that passage of the 12th Amendment confirmed that the Electoral College system was, and remains, appropriately subject to change.

Legislators in 1804 did not delay in amending the Constitution for reasons of fairness and practicality, and nor should we in 2004 fail to address the imperfect design that thwarts the will of the American public.

Even with the 12th Amendment in place, the Electoral College managed to turn logic on its head in presidential elections throughout the 19th century. Minority presidents, so-called for winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote, were elected three times--John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

And in 2000 the same problem re-surfaced, the fourth time in our Nation's short history, with Vice President Al Gore edging George Bush by 537,895 popular votes, but losing the electoral college by a mere 5 votes.

The Nation can be thankful, frankly, that we have only had disputed elections in just these four instances. A shift of a few thousand votes from one candidate to another in past presidential elections could have ordained similar disarray. Some noteworthy examples include: despite losing the popular vote by the sizable margin of 1.7 million votes, Gerald Ford in 1976 needed only 5,559 more votes in Ohio and 3,687 in Hawaii to reach the magical number of 270 electoral votes and he would have been returned to the White House.

And had California, Illinois and Ohio posited 29,000 more votes in Thomas Dewey's column, he lost the over popular vote by a wide margin, 2.1 million, in 1948, the face of history may have been changed forever with Harry Truman never returning to the White House.

And most recently, a shift of a mere 68,000 votes in Ohio from President George Bush's column to John Kerry would have allowed the Democrat to

win the electoral vote count, 271 to 267, and the Presidency, even though Bush enjoyed a sizable 3.5 million margin in popular votes cast.

According to some estimates, we have had no fewer than 22 near misses, all of which could have ended up as contentious as the 2000 contest. We are tempting fate by ignoring this problem: sooner or later a dramatic incongruity will occur between an electoral vote winner contrasted against a different popular vote winner whose margin of victory runs into the millions.

Electoral College anomalies don't end with disparities between the electoral and popular vote winners. The phenomenon of the ``Faithless Elector'' reflects a further structural defect in the Electoral College System.

History shows that electors have not been faithful to the presidential and vice presidential tickets winning the most votes in their respective states. They may initially pledge to the winning candidate, but enjoy individual discretion to change their vote when electoral votes are formally counted.

Contemporary examples are as follows: in 1968, Dr. Lloyd Bailey, a North Carolina elector initially pledged to Republican Richard Nixon, switched his vote to George Wallace of the American Independent Party; in 1972, Roger MacBride, a Virginia elector for Richard Nixon switched his vote to John Hospers of the Libertarian Party; in 1976, Mike Padden, a Washington elector for Gerald Ford voted for Ronald Reagan; in 1988, Margarat Leach, a West Virginia elector for Michael Dukakis, voted instead for Lloyd Bentsen, an unusual decision to exchange the positions of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates; and in 2000, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a District of Columbia elector for Democrat Albert Gore Jr., cast a blank ballot.

These arbitrary decisions did not affect the outcome in each of those presidential election years. But they all flouted the electoral will of the people.

The fact that such capricious switching is permitted, irrespective of the outcomes of the popular vote results in the states in question, is cause for great concern. What might happen if electors break their pledges to a particular candidate en masse? Is that possible and legally enforceable? The answer appears to be yes.

In this vein, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to envision three or more candidates splitting the electoral tally of votes such that none received the requisite majority of 270 to win the White House.

In that situation, what prevents one of the candidates directing his electors to another candidate, before the formal meeting of the Electors to count and certify the electoral votes occurs in the month following the November election, to allow him to gain the necessary majority of 270 in exchange for policy concessions or worse, a massive cash payment? Would that kind of corrupt transaction be allowed? What element of the current Electoral College system prevents such an unfortunate outcome?

This may not be likely, given our strong two party system, but it is possible. Yet we tolerate the risk of it happening, year after year, because we assume it will never occur. Someday we may regret our indecision to fix what we know is wrong with the Electoral College system.

Twenty-five years ago in the 96th Congress, a majority of the Senate voted 51 to 48 to support abolishing the Electoral College and replace it with direct popular elections. That legislation, S.J. Res. 26, fell short of the necessary two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment, but I am encouraged that more than half the body supported the concept.

A few years before that, the House voted overwhelmingly in the 91st Congress, by a vote of 338 to 70, for the direct popular election of the President. Alas, the effort fell short in the Senate.

I am prepared to press the case for this idea, on a bipartisan basis, through extensive committee deliberations and onto the Senate floor. The time has come for the Senate to reconsider the essential building blocks of our democracy.

Some might claim that offering a constitutional amendment is a political gambit to overcome my own State's weak position in the Electoral College voting system. It is a fact that smaller States, such as South Dakota, Wyoming, and others, maintain disproportionate influence in the process compared to California.

I would respond to that as follows: my approach does equate the vote of a Californian, Rhode Islander and South Dakotan as being equal. But it also means that millions of votes cast for Republican candidates in future presidential races in my home state will have meaning and value. Their votes will count for something.

In the 2000 race, George Bush received over 4.5 million votes in California. That should have counted for something--but it did not. All 54 of California's electoral votes went to Vice President Al Gore.

Given the domination of Democratic presidential candidates in California in the modern era, it is clear that my party would not benefit from a direct popular election in California.

But for me, this is about principle over politics. It is the right thing to do, even if it gives renewed life to Republican presidential candidates in my home State.

As it stands now, California is not a place where Republican and Democratic presidential candidates genuinely compete for votes. They come to California to fill their campaign coffers but take a pass with real voters. That needs to change--for California, yes, but also for New York, Texas, for Utah and for so many other States in the country.

I have tried to understand the counterarguments to a nationwide popular vote. They reflect a desire to empower both regional and rural interests, and deny major population centers from having excessive power. I appreciate the notion that we don't want clusters of cities and particular regions where the greatest numbers of Americans reside, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, to dominate the electoral landscape.

At the same time, a presidential candidate's priorities, record and vision for the country will determine how far he goes in the nominating and general election process. Stitching together a cross section of American voters, who represent different economic and social backgrounds, professions, parts of the country, religious faiths, and so much more holds the key to attaining a winning plurality or majority of votes in presidential races.

I would contend that it is up to the candidates to appeal to the broadest group of Americans but to level the playing field in doing so. In that process each American's vote, regardless of where that person lives in the country, should be counted equally.

Right now, that is just not the case. Our system is not undemocratic, but it is imperfect, and we have the power to do something about it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Electoral College Abolition Resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2006 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 every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my tenure in Congress, during good economic times and 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 governments 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 2004, the Federal Government spent more than $321 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 almost $8 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. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will greatly enhance Federal participation in financing and improving our Nation's ferry transportation system.

Today I again introduce the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act, or Ferry-TEA. I am proud to have Senators Collins, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Corzine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Snowe, and Stevens as original cosponsors. This bill will provide significantly more resources to State governments, public ferry systems, and public entities responsible for developing facilities for ferries.

Specifically, the bill would: provide $150 million a year for the Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program. This is approximately four times the $38 million a year that is currently being provided under this program; add ``ferry maintenance facilities'' to the list of allowable use of funds under this program; add ``ferries'' to the Clean Fuels Program; establish a Ferry Joint Program Office to coordinate federal programs affecting ferry boat and ferry facility construction, maintenance, and operations and to promote ferry service as a component of the nation's transportation system; establish an information database on ferry systems, routes, vessels, passengers and vehicles carried; and establish an institute for ferries to conduct R&D, conduct training programs, encourage collaborative efforts to promote ferry service, and preserve historical information. This will parallel institutes that now exist for highways, transit, and rail.

Currently, the Federal investment in ferries is only one-tenth of one percent of the total Surface Transportation Program. There is virtually no coordination at the federal level to encourage and promote ferries as there are for other modes of transportation.

We need better coordinated ferry services because it's the sole means of surface transportation in many areas of the country, including, Hawaii, Alaska and my home State of Washington.

Ferries are also the preferred, and the only feasible, method of commuting from home to work in places like Washington State, New York/ New Jersey, North Carolina, Hawaii and Alaska.

Finally, in many States like my home State of Washington they are an important part of the tourism industry and represent a part of our cultural identity.

The symbol of ferries moving people and vehicles on the waterways of the Puget Sound is as much a part of our cultural identity as computers, coffee, commercial aircraft and the Washington Apple.

Ferry use is growing.

In Washington State our ferry system--the Nation's largest-- transports approximately 26 million passengers each year and carries 11 million vehicles. This is more passengers in my one state than Amtrak transports on a yearly basis nationwide.

Other systems that serve New York/New Jersey, North Carolina, San Francisco, and Alaska also have significant numbers of passengers using the ferries.

The Nation's six largest ferry systems recently carried 73 million people and 13 million vehicles in just one year.

The growth projection for ferry use is very high. For these larger systems, it is projected that by 2009 there will be a 14-percent increase in passengers and a 17-percent increase in vehicles being carried by ferries compared to 2002.

In San Francisco, that projection is a 46-percent increase.

It is clear that many people are using ferries and more will be using them in the future.

This is all with very little help from the Federal Government.

Our investment in ferries pails in comparison to the federal investments in highways and other forms of mass transit.

Our bill would provide the needed funding for these growing systems for new ferry boat construction, for ferry facilities and terminals, and for maintenance facilities.

The bill also would make ferries eligible under the Clean Fuels Program.

Like busses, ferries are a form of mass transit that is environmentally cleaner than mass use of cars and trucks. Making them eligible for the Clean Fuels Program will encourage boat makers to design cleaner and more efficient vessels in the future. This will make ferry travel an even more environmentally friendly means of transportation than it already is today.

During the 108th Congress, I, with the help of several of my colleagues, was able to attach an amendment to the surface transportation reauthorization bill--SAFETEA. That amendment would have increased the funding for the Ferry Boat Discretionary Program from $38 million per year to $120 million per year and make other changes.

I thank Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Bond, and Senators Jeffords and Reid for working with us to include that important amendment.

As we again move to the Senate consideration of the reauthorization bill in the near future, I look forward to working with my cosponsors and the leaders of the Committee, which now includes Senator Baucus, to see all the elements of Ferry-TEA is included in the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the lifetime achievements of Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey, a public servant and world-renowned cardiologist, by offering legislation to award him the Congressional Gold Medal.

Throughout his life Dr. DeBakey has made numerous advances in the field of medicine. When he was only 23 years of age and still attending medical school, Dr. DeBakey developed a roller pump for blood transfusions--the precursor and major component of the heart-lung machine used in the first open-heart operation. This device later led to national recognition for his expertise in vascular disease. His service to our country did not stop there.

Dr. DeBakey put his practice on hold and volunteered for military service during World War II with the Surgeon General's staff. During this time, he received the rank of Colonel and Chief of Surgical Consultants Division.

As a result of his military and medical experience, Dr. DeBakey made numerous recommendations to improve the military's medical procedures. His efforts led to the development of mobile army surgical hospitals, better known as MASH units, which earned him the Legion of Merit in 1945.

After WWII, Dr. DeBakey continued his hard work by proposing national and specialized medical centers for those soldiers who were wounded or needed follow-up treatment. This recommendation evolved into the Veterans Affairs Medical Center System and the establishment of the commission on Veterans Medical Problems of the National Research Council.

In 1948, Dr. DeBakey joined the Baylor University College of Medicine, where he started its first surgical residency program and was later elected the first President of Baylor College of Medicine.

Adding to his list of accomplishments Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful procedure to treat patients with anyeurysms. In 1964, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful coronary bypass surgery, opening the doors for surgeons to perform preventative procedures to save the lives of many people with heart disease. He was also the first to successfully use a partial artificial heart. Later that same year, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. DeBakey as Chairman of the President's Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer and Stroke, which led to the creation of Regional Medical Programs. These programs coordinate medical schools, research institutions and hospitals to enhance research and training.

Dr. DeBakey continued to amaze the medical world when he pioneered the field of telemedicine by performing the first open-heart surgery transmitted over satellite and then supervised the first successful multi-organ transplant, where a heart, both kidneys and a lung were transplanted from a single donor into four separate recipients.

These accomplishments have led to national recognition. Dr. DeBakey has received both the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction from President Johnson and the National Medal of Science from President Ronald Reagan.

Recently, Dr. DeBakey worked with NASA engineers to develop the DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, which may eliminate the need for some patients to receive heart transplants.

I stand here today to acknowledge Dr. DeBakey's invaluable work and significant contribution to medicine by offering a bill to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. His efforts and innovative surgical techniques have since saved the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the profound impact this man has had on medical advances, the delivery of medicine and how we care for our Veterans. Although, Dr. DeBakey is not a native of Texas, he has made Texas proud. He has guided the Baylor College of Medicine and the city of Houston into becoming a world leader in medical advancement. On behalf of all Texans, I thank Dr. DeBakey for his lifetime of commitment and service not only to the medical community but to the world. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.