Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act. This bill authorizes the National Park Service, in coordination with the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, to undertake a special resource study to assess the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating various Manhattan Project sites and their facilities as a National Historical Park. Specifically, the study will evaluate the historic significance of the Manhattan Project facilities of Los Alamos and the Trinity Site in the State of New Mexico, of the Hanford Site in the State of Washington, and of Oak Ridge in the State of Tennessee. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues from the States of Washington, Senators Cantwell and Murray, are cosponsoring this bill.

The significance of the Manhattan Project to this Nation--and indeed the World--would be difficult to overstate. The project was initiated as a desperate effort in the middle of World War II to beat Nazi Germany to the construction of the first nuclear bomb. The effort was of a magnitude and intensity not seen before or since: in a mere three years, 130,000 men and women went to work on a $2.2 billion mission that furiously pushed science, technology, engineering, and society into a new age.

The magnitude of the effort is easily matched by its legacy. This legacy includes an ending to the Second World War, as well as the foundation for nuclear medicine and great advances in physics, mathematics, engineering, and technology. A number of scholars have argued that it also includes a dramatic change to a sustained era of relative world peace. But this legacy also includes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese, and the sacrifices of the homesteaders that were forced off of the sites to make way for the project, its thousands of workers and their families, and the uranium miners, ``down-winders'', and others. This legacy has been the subject of hot debate for decades, and this debate continues today--as it must.

There are historic facilities at the four Manhattan Project sites that are absolutely essential resources for informing this important debate, and there should be no question that they are of great national and international significance. Pulitzer Prize-winning Manhattan Project author Richard Rhodes has said that ``the discovery of how to release nuclear energy was arguably the most important human discovery since fire--reason enough to preserve its remarkable history.''

But while the enormous significance of the Manhattan Project makes our obligation to preserve and interpret this history abundantly clear, it makes it equally challenging. The greatest challenge has been--and will continue to be--interpreting this history in a sensitive and balanced way. This Nation is blessed with historic assets that praise the best of humanity and some that mourn the worst, some that grace us with glory and some that humble us with anguish, some that impress us with brilliance and some that embarrass us with senselessness, some that manifest beginnings and some that mark ends, some that inspire us with awe and some that fascinate us with curiosities, and some that grip us with the fear of destruction and some that give us the hope of creation. But I don't know of any others that challenge us with legitimate passions for all of these.

Preserving and interpreting this history also includes the challenge of respecting the ongoing missions and responsibilities of the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense at the Manhattan Project sites. Access to some of the historic facilities must be restricted--to some prohibited--and other precautions also may be necessary. The Departments of Energy and Defense have begun to take on these challenges, and they deserve much credit for doing so. The Bradbury Museum in Los Alamos is a good example, as are the biannual tours of the Trinity Site on White Sands Missile Range. They have recognized that preserving this history offers great opportunities not only for the public, but for their employees. Employees who better appreciate this history will be more likely to appreciate their careers, and they certainly will appreciate the boost interested tourists give to their local economies.

This bill asks the question whether we will do better to preserve and interpret the important history of the Manhattan Project by unifying and promoting the various efforts at these sites as a National Historical Park. It is appropriate that our Nation's leader in historic preservation and interpretation--the National Park Service--lead the effort to answer this question. In doing so, they will consult with the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, as well as State, tribal, and local officials, and representatives of interested organizations and members of the public. The Park Service's expertise, experience, and enthusiasm is critical to the endeavor.

In asking this question we are neither celebrating the Manhattan Project nor lamenting it. But we are recognizing our responsibility to society to ensure it is neither forgotten nor misunderstood.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Lugar, Lieberman and Bayh to offer legislation to honor our servicemen and women in Iraq, who serve far from home, and far from family and friends. They left the freedom and security of home to provide freedom and security to those who have not known it for many years. The human cost has been great, over 300 American fighting men and women will never come home, and over 1,500 will return wounded. Today, over 130,000 troops remain in the region. They remain to ensure that those who paid the ultimate sacrifice did not die in vain. They are also there to build a new Iraqi nation of stability and freedom. My fellow Senators, the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military, occupation and reconstruction effort since the end of World War II.

Despite their sacrifice and courage, these brave young men and women will not be specifically recognized for their service in Iraq. Instead, the Department of Defense has decided to award them the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. I believe that this is a mistake, and that our military deserves better. Along with my colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Bayh and Senator Lieberman, I propose to correct this mistake by offering legislation authorizing the Iraqi Lieberation Medal in lieu of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on this war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from active duty, National Guard, and Reserves are all volunteers and exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will return home to family and friends. They continue to serve despite the tremendous hardships they face and they continue to serve despite the constant threat to their lives. The President agrees with our view of the exemplary service of these young men and women. On the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, President Bush proclaimed: ``In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our Nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.''

I was extremely disappointed when I learned that those serving in Iraq would not be specifically recognized for their efforts. There will be no Iraqi campaign medal. Instead, the Department of Defense will award them a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary. I think this is a grave mistake.

During Operation Desert Storm, service members received three separate military decorations for their service: the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, and the Liberation of Kuwait medal. For service in Kosovo, our service men and women received the NATO Service Medal, and the Kosovo Campaign Medal.

Many within the military share this view; according to the Army Times: ``Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit.'' An expeditionary medal like the GWOT does not necessarily denote combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat.

Campaign medals matter. ``When a Marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders look first at his decorations and his physical fitness score--the first to see where he's been, the second to see if he can hang. `They show what you've done and how serious

you are,' said Gunnery Sgt. James Cuneo. `If you're a good Marine, people are going to award you when it comes time . . .'.''

My fellow distinguished colleagues, it is time.

We must recognize the sacrifice and courage of our young men and women who liberated Iraq, including great Americans like Army Specialist Joseph Hudson from Alamogordo, New Mexico, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated.

We have also asked much from our reserve and National Guard forces. The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 Guard and Reservists currently on active duty. As recently as this weekend an additional 10,000 troops from Washington State and North Carolina were activated for service in Iraq.

My colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and I are committed to honoring our over 200,000 heroes who liberated Iraq. We believe that current administration policy does a disservice to our fighting men and women. Therefore we propose, in lieu of the GWOT medal, a new decoration that characterizes the real mission in Iraq, one that is distinctive and honors their sacrifice, the Iraqi Liberation Medal.

What we do today is not without precedent; Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decorations. Our Nation's highest military decorations were authorized by Congress, including: The Congressional Medal of Honor; the Air Force Cross; the Navy Cross; the Army's Distinctive Service Cross; the Silver Star; and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. A partial list includes: Spanish War Service Medal; Army Occupation of Germany Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Berlin Airlift Medal; Korean Service Medal; and Prisoner of War Medal.

And the list goes on and on. The great men and women of our military forces are doing their jobs everyday in Iraq. It is time to do our job and honor them with a medal that truly stands for their heroic service, the Iraqi Liberation Medal.

I ask unanimous consent that an Air Force Times article also be printed in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Lugar, Lieberman and Bayh to offer legislation to honor our servicemen and women in Iraq, who serve far from home, and far from family and friends. They left the freedom and security of home to provide freedom and security to those who have not known it for many years. The human cost has been great, over 300 American fighting men and women will never come home, and over 1,500 will return wounded. Today, over 130,000 troops remain in the region. They remain to ensure that those who paid the ultimate sacrifice did not die in vain. They are also there to build a new Iraqi nation of stability and freedom. My fellow Senators, the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military, occupation and reconstruction effort since the end of World War II.

Despite their sacrifice and courage, these brave young men and women will not be specifically recognized for their service in Iraq. Instead, the Department of Defense has decided to award them the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. I believe that this is a mistake, and that our military deserves better. Along with my colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Bayh and Senator Lieberman, I propose to correct this mistake by offering legislation authorizing the Iraqi Lieberation Medal in lieu of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on this war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from active duty, National Guard, and Reserves are all volunteers and exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will return home to family and friends. They continue to serve despite the tremendous hardships they face and they continue to serve despite the constant threat to their lives. The President agrees with our view of the exemplary service of these young men and women. On the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, President Bush proclaimed: ``In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our Nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.''

I was extremely disappointed when I learned that those serving in Iraq would not be specifically recognized for their efforts. There will be no Iraqi campaign medal. Instead, the Department of Defense will award them a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary. I think this is a grave mistake.

During Operation Desert Storm, service members received three separate military decorations for their service: the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, and the Liberation of Kuwait medal. For service in Kosovo, our service men and women received the NATO Service Medal, and the Kosovo Campaign Medal.

Many within the military share this view; according to the Army Times: ``Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit.'' An expeditionary medal like the GWOT does not necessarily denote combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat.

Campaign medals matter. ``When a Marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders look first at his decorations and his physical fitness score--the first to see where he's been, the second to see if he can hang. `They show what you've done and how serious

you are,' said Gunnery Sgt. James Cuneo. `If you're a good Marine, people are going to award you when it comes time . . .'.''

My fellow distinguished colleagues, it is time.

We must recognize the sacrifice and courage of our young men and women who liberated Iraq, including great Americans like Army Specialist Joseph Hudson from Alamogordo, New Mexico, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated.

We have also asked much from our reserve and National Guard forces. The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 Guard and Reservists currently on active duty. As recently as this weekend an additional 10,000 troops from Washington State and North Carolina were activated for service in Iraq.

My colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and I are committed to honoring our over 200,000 heroes who liberated Iraq. We believe that current administration policy does a disservice to our fighting men and women. Therefore we propose, in lieu of the GWOT medal, a new decoration that characterizes the real mission in Iraq, one that is distinctive and honors their sacrifice, the Iraqi Liberation Medal.

What we do today is not without precedent; Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decorations. Our Nation's highest military decorations were authorized by Congress, including: The Congressional Medal of Honor; the Air Force Cross; the Navy Cross; the Army's Distinctive Service Cross; the Silver Star; and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. A partial list includes: Spanish War Service Medal; Army Occupation of Germany Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Berlin Airlift Medal; Korean Service Medal; and Prisoner of War Medal.

And the list goes on and on. The great men and women of our military forces are doing their jobs everyday in Iraq. It is time to do our job and honor them with a medal that truly stands for their heroic service, the Iraqi Liberation Medal.

I ask unanimous consent that an Air Force Times article also be printed in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the ``Ojito Wilderness Act'', a wilderness bill that has broad support in New Mexico. This bill designates the State's fourth Bureau of Land Management Wilderness area, and its first new wilderness area in more than 15 years. Keeping in mind Theodore Roosevelt's statement that ``there are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm,'' the Ojito can be described as nearly 11,000 acres of dramatic landforms and multi-colored rock formations, with sculptured badlands, expansive plateaus and mesa tops, a high density of cultural and archaeological sites and paleontological resources, and a diverse array of plant and animal species. It is an area that is big enough to get lost in, but small enough that it will not change the fact that only one percent of New Mexico's BLM lands are designated as wilderness. The bill also provides for the acquisition of some adjacent public lands by the Pueblo of Zia for preservation as public open space. I am pleased that the senior Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, is cosponsoring this bill and that my distinguished colleague from the Third District of New Mexico, Representative Udall, is introducing a companion measure in the House of Representatives.

The support for this proposal truly is impressive. It has been formally endorsed by the Governor of New Mexico; the local Sandoval County Commission and the neighboring Bernalillo County Commission; the Albuquerque City Council; New Mexico House of Representatives Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman James Roger Madalena; the Governors of the Pueblos of Zia, Santa Ana, Santo Domingo, Cochiti, Tesuque, San Ildefonso, Pojoaque, Nambe, Santa Clara, San Juan, Sandia, Laguna, Acoma, Isleta, Picuris, and Taos; the National Congress of American Indians; the Hopi Tribe; The Wilderness Society; the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance; the Coalition for New Mexico Wilderness, on behalf of more than 375 businesses and organizations; the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club; the National Parks and Conservation Association; the Albuquerque Convention and Visitors Bureau; 1000 Friends of New Mexico; and numerous individuals.

The designation of the Ojito Wilderness was recommended by Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, Jr,.--a former New Mexico Congressman of 20 years--in 1991. Secretary Lujan found the Ojito to have ``high quality wilderness values'' with ``outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation,'' as well as ``outstanding photographic and sightseeing opportunities.'' The ``close proximity to the Albuquerque and Santa Fe population centers, cultural and paleontological special features, and the lack of resource conflicts'' made the recommendation particularly strong. President George H.W. Bush concurred in the recommendation and forwarded it to Congress for designation. This bill adopts the boundaries recommended at that time, so there should be no question or dispute that all of the lands proposed for wilderness in this bill fully qualify for wilderness status under the Wilderness Act.

This bill also takes advantage of a unique opportunity to benefit both the Pueblo and the public by authorizing the Pueblo to acquire some public lands that are sandwiched between the Zia Reservation and the Ojito Wilderness Study Area. The general public will benefit from the assurance that these lands will be protected for the future, forming a protective buffer around the Ojito Wilderness and providing additional opportunities for primitive public recreation. This bill secures continued public access to this open space for recreational, scenic, paleontological, scientific, educational, and conservation uses.

While these lands are--and will remain--important to the public, they have special importance to the Pueblo and its people. These lands are part of the Pueblo's aboriginal land base, and they harbor many cultural, religious, historical, and archaeological sites of great import to the Pueblo. By acquiring these lands, the Pueblo will finally unite the two non-contiguous parts of its Reservation. The Pueblo may continue to graze its cattle on these lands, but it is prohibited from using the lands for housing, gaming, mining, or other commercial enterprises.

The Pueblo will purchase these lands for fair market value, which will, of course, take into consideration the restrictions and prohibitions on various uses, the requirement that the natural characteristics of the land be preserved in perpetuity, and the guarantee that public access be maintained. Existing rights are protected, so, for example, the main access road will remain a county road and the existing pipelines

and transmission line will be unaffected. The Pueblo also has agreed to recognize the grazing privileges of a neighboring ranch that has the only other outstanding grazing permit on the lands to be transferred, and it is working on memorializing that agreement.

The New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands, Patrick H. Lyons, supports this transfer. In a letter endorsing the proposal, he told the Pueblo that it ``makes sense from a management perspective, and I applaud your efforts to address this matter in a cooperative manner. Once transferred, I am confident that the Pueblo of Zia will manage its acquisition with the same sensitivity with which it manages all its lands.'' I agree, and this bill authorizes the Pueblo to manage this land pursuant to regulations that are approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

I am particularly pleased to introduce this legislation in celebration of the upcoming 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the eightieth anniversary of the Nation's first administratively-designated wilderness. This celebration is particularly meaningful to my State of New Mexico, for it is both the proud birthplace of wilderness and the home to two of its fathers: Aldo Leopold, who worked from Albuquerque for 15 years to create in 1924 the Gila wilderness near my home in southern New Mexico, and New Mexico Senator Clinton Anderson, who was instrumental in codifying Aldo Leopold's wilderness and ethic 40 years later.

Forty years later still, the Ojito provides a unique wilderness area that is important not only to its local stewards, but also to the nearby residents of Albuquerque and Santa Fe, as well as visitors from across the country. It is an outdoor geology laboratory, offering a spectacular and unique opportunity to view from a single location the juxtaposition of the southwestern margin of the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado Plateau, and the Rio Grande Rift, along with the volcanic necks of the Rio Puerco Fault. Its rugged terrain offers a rewarding challenge to hikers, backpackers, and photographers. It shelters ancient Puebloan ruins and an endemic endangered plant, solitude and inspiration.

The words of Aldo Leopold and Senator Clinton Anderson are fitting for the Ojito, for it is ``what the land was, what it is, and what it ought to be''; let this ``Ojito Wilderness Act'' be ``a demonstration by our people that we can put aside a portion of this which we have as a tribute to the Maker and say this we will leave as we found it.''

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

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the ``Ojito Wilderness Act'', a wilderness bill that has broad support in New Mexico. This bill designates the State's fourth Bureau of Land Management Wilderness area, and its first new wilderness area in more than 15 years. Keeping in mind Theodore Roosevelt's statement that ``there are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm,'' the Ojito can be described as nearly 11,000 acres of dramatic landforms and multi-colored rock formations, with sculptured badlands, expansive plateaus and mesa tops, a high density of cultural and archaeological sites and paleontological resources, and a diverse array of plant and animal species. It is an area that is big enough to get lost in, but small enough that it will not change the fact that only one percent of New Mexico's BLM lands are designated as wilderness. The bill also provides for the acquisition of some adjacent public lands by the Pueblo of Zia for preservation as public open space. I am pleased that the senior Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, is cosponsoring this bill and that my distinguished colleague from the Third District of New Mexico, Representative Udall, is introducing a companion measure in the House of Representatives.

The support for this proposal truly is impressive. It has been formally endorsed by the Governor of New Mexico; the local Sandoval County Commission and the neighboring Bernalillo County Commission; the Albuquerque City Council; New Mexico House of Representatives Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman James Roger Madalena; the Governors of the Pueblos of Zia, Santa Ana, Santo Domingo, Cochiti, Tesuque, San Ildefonso, Pojoaque, Nambe, Santa Clara, San Juan, Sandia, Laguna, Acoma, Isleta, Picuris, and Taos; the National Congress of American Indians; the Hopi Tribe; The Wilderness Society; the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance; the Coalition for New Mexico Wilderness, on behalf of more than 375 businesses and organizations; the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club; the National Parks and Conservation Association; the Albuquerque Convention and Visitors Bureau; 1000 Friends of New Mexico; and numerous individuals.

The designation of the Ojito Wilderness was recommended by Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, Jr,.--a former New Mexico Congressman of 20 years--in 1991. Secretary Lujan found the Ojito to have ``high quality wilderness values'' with ``outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation,'' as well as ``outstanding photographic and sightseeing opportunities.'' The ``close proximity to the Albuquerque and Santa Fe population centers, cultural and paleontological special features, and the lack of resource conflicts'' made the recommendation particularly strong. President George H.W. Bush concurred in the recommendation and forwarded it to Congress for designation. This bill adopts the boundaries recommended at that time, so there should be no question or dispute that all of the lands proposed for wilderness in this bill fully qualify for wilderness status under the Wilderness Act.

This bill also takes advantage of a unique opportunity to benefit both the Pueblo and the public by authorizing the Pueblo to acquire some public lands that are sandwiched between the Zia Reservation and the Ojito Wilderness Study Area. The general public will benefit from the assurance that these lands will be protected for the future, forming a protective buffer around the Ojito Wilderness and providing additional opportunities for primitive public recreation. This bill secures continued public access to this open space for recreational, scenic, paleontological, scientific, educational, and conservation uses.

While these lands are--and will remain--important to the public, they have special importance to the Pueblo and its people. These lands are part of the Pueblo's aboriginal land base, and they harbor many cultural, religious, historical, and archaeological sites of great import to the Pueblo. By acquiring these lands, the Pueblo will finally unite the two non-contiguous parts of its Reservation. The Pueblo may continue to graze its cattle on these lands, but it is prohibited from using the lands for housing, gaming, mining, or other commercial enterprises.

The Pueblo will purchase these lands for fair market value, which will, of course, take into consideration the restrictions and prohibitions on various uses, the requirement that the natural characteristics of the land be preserved in perpetuity, and the guarantee that public access be maintained. Existing rights are protected, so, for example, the main access road will remain a county road and the existing pipelines

and transmission line will be unaffected. The Pueblo also has agreed to recognize the grazing privileges of a neighboring ranch that has the only other outstanding grazing permit on the lands to be transferred, and it is working on memorializing that agreement.

The New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands, Patrick H. Lyons, supports this transfer. In a letter endorsing the proposal, he told the Pueblo that it ``makes sense from a management perspective, and I applaud your efforts to address this matter in a cooperative manner. Once transferred, I am confident that the Pueblo of Zia will manage its acquisition with the same sensitivity with which it manages all its lands.'' I agree, and this bill authorizes the Pueblo to manage this land pursuant to regulations that are approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

I am particularly pleased to introduce this legislation in celebration of the upcoming 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the eightieth anniversary of the Nation's first administratively-designated wilderness. This celebration is particularly meaningful to my State of New Mexico, for it is both the proud birthplace of wilderness and the home to two of its fathers: Aldo Leopold, who worked from Albuquerque for 15 years to create in 1924 the Gila wilderness near my home in southern New Mexico, and New Mexico Senator Clinton Anderson, who was instrumental in codifying Aldo Leopold's wilderness and ethic 40 years later.

Forty years later still, the Ojito provides a unique wilderness area that is important not only to its local stewards, but also to the nearby residents of Albuquerque and Santa Fe, as well as visitors from across the country. It is an outdoor geology laboratory, offering a spectacular and unique opportunity to view from a single location the juxtaposition of the southwestern margin of the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado Plateau, and the Rio Grande Rift, along with the volcanic necks of the Rio Puerco Fault. Its rugged terrain offers a rewarding challenge to hikers, backpackers, and photographers. It shelters ancient Puebloan ruins and an endemic endangered plant, solitude and inspiration.

The words of Aldo Leopold and Senator Clinton Anderson are fitting for the Ojito, for it is ``what the land was, what it is, and what it ought to be''; let this ``Ojito Wilderness Act'' be ``a demonstration by our people that we can put aside a portion of this which we have as a tribute to the Maker and say this we will leave as we found it.''

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

Mr. President, I yield myself the first 3 minutes of my 5 minutes.

Mr. President, amendment No. 1740 is straightforward. It would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior, working through the Park Service, from issuing any permit allowing a special event on The National Mall unless the permit expressly prohibited the use of structures or signs bearing commercial advertising.

The amendment does provide that there can be sponsor recognition of special events, but it makes clear we intend to have the Park Service interpret that in a way that is consistent with the special nature of The National Mall.

We would also require that the lettering or design that identifies the sponsor not be more than a third the size of the lettering identifying what the special event is.

I have shown this photograph before. I will show it again so people have an idea of what prompted my amendment. This is a special event that the Park Service approved and issued a permit for a couple of weeks ago on The National Mall. This event was a football and music festival entitled ``NFL Kick-off Live From The National Mall Presented by Pepsi Vanilla''.

This photograph is from the Washington Post. This is an enlarged photograph that was in the Washington Post. You can see that there are a whole series of banners up and down The Mall. There is one for Verizon, and this one is for Pepsi Vanilla, and here is a giant football with NFL signs on it.

It seemed clear to me that this was commercial advertising any way you look at it. The Park Service, unfortunately, takes the position that this was entirely appropriate. No commercial advertising here. This is sponsor recognition. We were giving some recognition to those that were underwriting this important event for a public purpose. You may say, what was the public purpose? Well, it was to take pride in America--you can find that phrase way down here--and this is the idea that there is voluntarism, and that was the reason we opened this up with the NFL. It gave them a permit for 17 days, during which time they could block off The Mall, prepare for the festival, have the festival, and break down the equipment after the festival and so on.

I will show the other photograph. This is another photograph that shows the fence that was put around The Mall, with advertisements for AOL, Pepsi Vanilla, Coors, and Verizon. This, of course, was blocking access to The Mall for the public. If you wanted to walk or jog on The Mall, or do anything else, you were prohibited from doing so during this period.

We need to clarify what the law is. My amendment will do that. It says we don't want commercial advertisement on The Mall. I always thought that was the policy, and, up until now, I think it has generally been the policy. But it is clearly not recognized that way by the current Secretary of the Interior and the head of the Park Service. We need to clarify that.

I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. It puts into law a prohibition of commercial advertising on The National Mall for the first time.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Thomas and Senator Burns for their support and, of course, Senator Dorgan, who is a cosponsor.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka, who is the ranking member on the National Parks Subcommittee in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate the broad support we are receiving for the amendment, and I hope all Senators will vote in favor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have filed an amendment to S. 1391 that would allocate $950,000 from the United States Geological Survey's, USGS, Ground-Water Resources Program to initiate a United States-Mexico binational groundwater study of transboundary aquifers. The parameters of this study have been developed by the USGS in cooperation with the Water Resources Research Institutes in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and other interested parties. It is very important that the USGS receive funding to implement its plan. During the past decade, the United States-Mexico border region experienced significant economic expansion that was accompanied by rapid population growth and urban development. It is now anticipated that water quantity and water quality will most likely be the limiting factors that ultimately control future economic development, population growth, and human health in the border region. The binational program funded by this request will be a scientific partnership between the USGS, the border states, and several key Universities in the region. It will systematically assess priority transboundary aquifers, and will provide a scientific foundation and create sophisticated tools for State and local water resource managers to address the challenges facing them in the border region.

I have discussed the need for this amendment with the distinguished chairman, and he has been very helpful in discussing various options to secure funding to initiate this study. The President's budget requested $1.0 million for USGS to begin work on a closely related United States- Mexico Border Human Health Initiative. The House of Representatives has provided the full amount in its version of the Interior appropriations bill, but the Senate has only been able to provide $500,000 for this effort. In conference, I have requested that the chairman agree to the higher amount that the House has provided for the Border health initiative but to direct the USGS to use the additional $500,000 to begin the binational groundwater study. I believe this work will address the critical need I just described while also providing valuable data and information that is consistent with the border health initiative.

I thank the distinguished chairman for his consideration and his work on this important matter. I look forward to continue working with him as the Interior appropriations bill goes to conference.

e85 infrastructure

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, the manager of the bill, for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside temporarily and I be allowed to offer another amendment.

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

Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading the full amendment. I wanted her to read it so all Members would know what the subject of the amendment was and also the substance of it.

This amendment would prohibit the National Park Service from issuing any permit for a special event on the National Mall unless the permit expressly prohibits the use of commercial advertising.

Last week, I spoke at length about my concern with a particular special event that took place on The Mall earlier this month. This event was described by the Department of Interior as a football and musical festival entitled--and this whole thing is the title of the event--the ``NFL Kickoff Live from the National Mall Presented by Pepsi Vanilla.''

The Mall is often used for large public gatherings. We are all familiar with the Smithsonian Folklife Festival during the Fourth of July celebration and the Cherry Blossom Festival in the spring. The National Mall is also, of course, one of the most significant, if not the most significant, sites for public demonstrations in our Nation.

As Judge Buckley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia wrote:

It is here [on the National Mall] that the constitutional

right of speech and peaceful assembly find their fullest

expression.

The management of The Mall is entrusted to the Department of the Interior. More specifically, it is entrusted to the National Park Service. The Park Service's own regulations and guidelines make clear that The Mall is not intended to be used for commercial purposes. The Park Service guidelines state:

The theme of the special event must be consistent with the

mission of the park area in which it is to be held, including

consideration of possible damage and/or impairment to park

property and . . . values.

In my view, with respect to the recent event I have described, for whatever reason, the Park Service decided to effectively ignore its own policy.

Let me show a couple of photographs to make the point. I showed these a week or so ago on the Senate floor. They fairly graphically point out the problem I am trying to have addressed. This is a photograph that appeared in the Washington Post. It is a photograph down The Mall. You can see the Capitol Building in the distance. You can see the various banners which were essentially just commercial advertising banners for Pepsi Vanilla. And then down at the bottom, it does say, ``Take Pride in America.'' But the main thrust of the banner, I suggest, to any unbiased observer is that it is an ad for Pepsi Vanilla.

Obviously, this very large football is intended to advertise the National Football League which we all support, but clearly, what we see here in this photo is commercial activity being conducted on The Mall.

Let me show another event to make the point even further. This is a photograph related to the same event. It shows a large fence put up around a large portion of The Mall. It contains what are clearly advertisements for various companies: AOL for broadband, Pepsi Vanilla, Verizon, Coors Light. According to our Secretary of the Interior and to the Director of the National Park Service, these are not advertisements. Instead, in their view, these constitute sponsor recognition. Frankly, this is a distinction of which I was not aware.

The Department of the Interior and the Park Service continue to insist that this event, about which I have complained in the way it was conducted, was entirely appropriate, that the banners and the signs were just sponsor recognition. The Secretary of the Interior and the head of the Park Service are, of course, by law the two public officials appointed by the President and charged with the responsibility of protecting The Mall and ensuring that the uses of The Mall be appropriate. These photos clearly represent their view of what is appropriate use of The Mall. I strongly disagree.

Let me explain specifically what it is that I am opposed to. The Interior Department claims that the purpose of the event in this case was to express support for the Department's ``Take Pride in America'' slogan, encouraging people to volunteer for projects on public lands and to honor members of the Armed Forces. Obviously, all of us, all Americans favor these good purposes. But the stated rationale for approving the event is not consistent with what was taking place on The Mall.

In my opinion, the Interior Department and the National Park Service allowed a large portion of The Mall to be virtually closed to public use for several days to allow essentially for a commercial event. When I say ``for several days,'' the permit allowed the sponsor of this event 17 days in which to organize and set up the extravaganza, conduct the event, and then remove the various items put there as part of it. But this was essentially a commercial event.

It featured commercial advertising by private corporations. The event was used as the basis for a commercial television production. The commercials featuring event sponsors were broadcast over large-screen televisions set up in The Mall. Those commercial uses and commercial advertising were not an appropriate use of The Mall.

I also believe it is not appropriate to close a large portion of The Mall for a commercially related purpose for long periods of time to the exclusion of the general public.

I received a letter last week from the Director of the National Park Service. She wrote to express her concern that if sponsor recognition were prohibited on The Mall, many special events that had been approved in the past would not be able to take place in the future. Frankly, I would have felt better had she also indicated in the letter some concern for the need to protect The Mall and to protect the public right to access to The Mall comparable to the level of interest that she demonstrated for corporate sponsors. But I do agree with the main point she was making, that most of these special events, many of which involve races or walks or various charitable causes, do not infringe on the public's ability to use The Mall. Most are not inherently commercial.

The amendment I am offering would allow the National Park Service to provide for limited sponsor recognition. It would require that the size and form of the recognition be consistent with the special nature and sanctity of The Mall, which is identical to the language we approved in the Senate earlier this year with respect to the proposed education center near the Vietnam Memorial on The Mall. It also would limit the size of any sponsor recognition to one-third the size of the lettering or design that is put there to name the special event.

As the photos indicate, during the last event, that was essentially reversed. The sponsors' names were given by far the greatest visibility.

Finally, the amendment directs that the Secretary, to the maximum extent possible, ensure that public use of The Mall and access not be restricted in leading up to or during or following these special events.

I do not believe in trying to micromanage agency management decisions through legislation. With respect to this amendment, we have tried to give the Park Service flexibility to determine what is an appropriate means to

recognize event sponsors, while making it clear that at least the Congress believes commercial advertising should not be permitted.

Department of the Interior and National Park Service officials have not shown the judgment necessary to protect the public's interest under the authority they currently have. Instead, they have bent over backwards to accommodate commercial interests that wanted to use The Mall for commercial purposes. While it is impossible to legislate common sense and good judgment, I believe the amendment would at least make clear that The Mall, which the Park Service itself has described as ``the single most significant public park and open space in our Nation's Capital,'' should not be a venue for commercial use and for advertising.

I believe this is an entirely reasonable amendment. It is one I am offering on behalf of myself and Senators Dorgan and Reid of Nevada. I hope it can gain unanimous support and that by adopting it we can send a strong message that we believe The Mall's special place in our national heritage needs to be preserved.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we yield back our time.

Mr. President, I rise today to explain my reasons for supporting the Feinstein amendment. This amendment first and foremost seeks to reduce the funding for the robust nuclear earth penetrator, or RNEP. While on the Armed Services Committee, I took the lead on numerous occasions in opposing this program. I believe that it sends the wrong signal to other nations when we are proposing to expand our nuclear arsenal at the very same time we are trying to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction worldwide.

Further, this country clearly has superiority in advanced conventional weapons, as evidenced by the recent conflict in Iraq. Very few, if any, nations can compete with the U.S. in conventional weapons. We should be relying on this advantage in conventional weapons rather than forcing other nations to compete with us on nuclear weapons as we did before the end of the cold war.

There is also a pragmatic reason why I believe the RNEP is not needed. In my opinion, our existing arsenal, particularly the B-83 tactical nuclear bomb, is more than adequate to serve as a deterrent against the hardest underground targets that confront us today. The administration envisions the RNEP as a weapon that will destroy deep underground targets. Yet proponents of this argument seem not to have considered the loss of function to an underground target that a B-83, whose yield is in excess of 1 megaton, will cause. I am sure that after such a devastating explosion, very little, if any, of the deepest underground targets will pose much of a threat to the U.S.

Further, the amendment seeks to strike funding for the advanced concepts initiative. The administration claims that such funds are needed to keep our weapons scientists on the cutting edge of warhead design but they have not explained to us what avenues of research they wish to pursue. In my opinion, we barely know enough about modeling how our existing warheads function under the stockpile stewardship program. Our modern strategic warheads, such as the W-76 and W-88, are very complicated; modeling them challenges even the most advanced calculations on our laboratory supercomputers. There is no need at this time to embark on the new avenue of research in the advanced concepts initiative when we don't understand the science underlying the stockpile stewardship of our deployed arsenal. The advanced concepts initiative will be a dangerous distraction from the stockpile stewardship program.

The third provision of this amendment is somewhat more complicated. Let me begin by stating that I strongly support the construction of a modern pit facility as an integral component of the stockpile stewardship program. An earlier version of this amendment struck the funding for conceptual design work on this facility, which, in my opinion, was a mistake. I expressed my concerns to Senator Feinstein, and I am pleased that this version of the amendment retains these conceptual designs funds.

There is a fundamental reason why I think the modern pit facility is important. Our pits are approaching ages in some cases of up to 35 years old. Our best scientists do not fully understand the way aging affects on these plutonium pits. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, we are just now at the stage where we can produce our first prototype test pit, 15 years after the Rocky Flats plant stopped production of these pits. But the Los Alamos facility cannot expand to handle the production that our stockpile may require 15 years from now.

With regard to siting the facility, I do not believe that we will have all the information we will need to do so by 2004. I have not seen any statements by the administration on what size the stockpile will be in 2012, when the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty reduces the stockpile down to 1200 to 1700 strategic weapons. I note that this treaty does not account for the deployed warheads found in gravity bombs. As a result of this lack of precision in future stockpile size, the DOE's Environmental Impact Statement gives production rates that range by a factor of four from 100 to 450 pits per year. Given that the stockpile size has not been decided at this time, and that the modern pit facility will not start operations until 2018, I cannot see how the Department of Energy can configure, much less site, their pit production facility in fiscal year 2004. I concur with Senator Feinstein that the DOE can hold off siting the facility for a year, while continuing its design to

match the stockpile requirements from the Department of Defense.

I would like to note that I have advocated that if and when DOE justifies the facility's size, then Carlsbad, NM is the best location for it. Carlsbad's close proximity to Los Alamos National Laboratory means that the scientists who are researching the best ways to re- manufacture pits will be able to easily travel and impart that knowledge to the production plant. Carlsbad has a top-notch workforce at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant well-trained for handling radioactive materials that will be essential to the pit facility. The Carlsbad community has shown strong support for the facility as well.

I support this amendment, but I also want to make clear that I also support the goal of constructing a modern pit facility, provided that they have a clear mandate from the Department of Defense on the facility's size based upon the stockpile, and we expect in 2018, when it begins operation.

Mr. President, will the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. President, section 310 of the current legislation directs the Secretary of Energy to file a permit modification to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's, WIPP, Waste Analysis Plan, WAP. Section 310(a) requires that for determining compliance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et. seq., and any other applicable laws, all waste received for storage and disposal shall be limited in confirmation that it contains no ignitable, corrosive or reactive waste through the use of radiography or visual examination of a statistically representative population of waste; and to review of the waste stream profile form to verify that the waste contains no ignitable, corrosive or reactive waste. Section 310(b) requires that compliance shall be monitored exclusively in the WIPP underground rooms through airborne monitoring of volatile inorganic compounds.

Mr. President, is the chairman aware of an ongoing study, due December 2003, by the National Academy's Board on Radioactive Waste Management regarding waste characterization requirements for contact handled transuranic waste to be disposed of at the WIPP facility?

Mr. President, will the chairman agree that as section 310 undergoes conference with the House and the language is considered that it is consistent with the ongoing study by the National Academy?

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for taking the time to discuss this matter with me.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Head Start Assessment Act of 2003. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the full-scale implementation of the Head Start National Reporting System takes place after there has been ample opportunity for expert and public commentary on the assessment, Congressional oversight hearings have been held, and the National Academies have completed a study of this issue to ensure that the assessment is reliable and appropriate.

Currently, children in Head Start are assessed 3 times a year on all of the domains of early learning and development, including literacy and math. The National Reporting System (NRS) is an assessment developed by HHS, which would create an additional test for all 4-year olds in Head Start, roughly \1/2\ million children, on literacy and math skills only. Children would be assessed twice a year and according to Administration documents, changes over time in children's scores would be used to judge the success of individual Head Start programs. The new testing program is expected to cost about $20 million each year. Some pilot testing was begun in April and May of 2003 and HHS expects to begin full implementation of the NRS this fall.

The purpose of the bill that I am introducing today is not to undermine this assessment, or to oppose assessment, but to make sure that it is done correctly. As you know, I have a long history of supporting accountability for educational programs. Assessments are important tools for accountability. They can be used to benefit teachers and students and to raise the bar for all educational programs. That being said, a good assessment takes time to develop and the measures and procedures that are used must be thoroughly debated and discussed. I have grave concerns about the speed with which the NRS was developed as well as with the opacity of the process by which HHS has proceeded to date.

Assessing young children is notoriously difficult. They are not used to taking tests and often do not have the emotional maturity to sit still and focus on the task at hand. Their test scores tend to fluctuate across time and can reflect many factors unrelated to their skills. The National Academy of Sciences report, ``Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers'' made it clear that more research on assessing young children is needed before such assessments should be used for accountability purposes. Because of this, it is crucial that the assessment instruments to be used in the NRS are properly validated and deemed to be appropriate for 4-year old children. At this point, we have little information about exactly what those instruments are and HHS has not made available the results of pilot tests or the comments made by experts on the content of the assessment.

To my mind, the speed with which this assessment was rolled out makes it unlikely that the measures have been properly developed and tested. It has also become clear that the assessment targets only a few of the skills that Head Start seeks to instill in children. For example, social skills are not being assessed and it is clear that without them, children are simply not ready to learn.

It is also very important that sufficient time be taken to insure that English language learners are not put at a disadvantage by being given a test that is not appropriate for them. The test is in English and Spanish, and yet many Head Start children speak Asian or other languages. In my home State of New Mexico, for example, I have heard from Native American Head Start Directors who are concerned that the NRS, in its current form, is not appropriate for their students, who often do not speak English in the home. We should take the time to insure that the assessment tool that is ultimately used is valid and reliable, assesses the gamut of skills that children acquire in Head Start, and is appropriate for children from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds.

It is also crucial that throughout the process of developing these instruments, there is ample consultation both with the public and with experts in early childhood development and research methodology. The results of these consultations and decisions regarding the NRS should be made public. Although HHS claims that they have had many meetings with ``experts'', there is little or no information publicly available that clarifies what went on at these meetings, what decisions were reached, and whether the advice of the experts was or was not heeded in developing the NRS. To date, there has been no Congressional oversight or public task force convened. Development of an assessment tool as important as this one should not occur behind closed doors. Congress and the public have a right to participate in and comment on this process.

My bill would help to insure that the NRS is developed in the proper fashion. The Secretary of HHS would be required to halt the full-scale implementation of the NRS until such time as Congressional oversight hearings have been held, the Secretary has concluded public forums on this issue, and the National Academy of Sciences has conducted a study using a panel of nationally recognized experts in early childhood assessment, child development, and education. The NAS study would provide specific information regarding: a. the skills and competencies that are predictive of school readiness and academic success in young children, b. the

development, selection, and use of instruments to assess literacy, mathematical, emotional and social skills as well as health and physical well-being young children, c. the proper use of early childhood assessments to improve Head Start programs and d. the steps needed to ensure that assessments take into account the racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity of Head Start students, among other things.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Head Start is the flagship educational program for low-income children. Studies clearly show that children who attend Head Start programs show gains in their cognitive and social skills, but we also know that more can and should be done for this vulnerable population. Assessments can be an important means to insure that quality is maintained in each Head Start program, but poorly developed or implemented assessments can do more harm than good. Let's take our time, consult with the experts and the public, and come up with a National Reporting System that we can all be proud of.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Head Start Assessment Act of 2003. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the full-scale implementation of the Head Start National Reporting System takes place after there has been ample opportunity for expert and public commentary on the assessment, Congressional oversight hearings have been held, and the National Academies have completed a study of this issue to ensure that the assessment is reliable and appropriate.

Currently, children in Head Start are assessed 3 times a year on all of the domains of early learning and development, including literacy and math. The National Reporting System (NRS) is an assessment developed by HHS, which would create an additional test for all 4-year olds in Head Start, roughly \1/2\ million children, on literacy and math skills only. Children would be assessed twice a year and according to Administration documents, changes over time in children's scores would be used to judge the success of individual Head Start programs. The new testing program is expected to cost about $20 million each year. Some pilot testing was begun in April and May of 2003 and HHS expects to begin full implementation of the NRS this fall.

The purpose of the bill that I am introducing today is not to undermine this assessment, or to oppose assessment, but to make sure that it is done correctly. As you know, I have a long history of supporting accountability for educational programs. Assessments are important tools for accountability. They can be used to benefit teachers and students and to raise the bar for all educational programs. That being said, a good assessment takes time to develop and the measures and procedures that are used must be thoroughly debated and discussed. I have grave concerns about the speed with which the NRS was developed as well as with the opacity of the process by which HHS has proceeded to date.

Assessing young children is notoriously difficult. They are not used to taking tests and often do not have the emotional maturity to sit still and focus on the task at hand. Their test scores tend to fluctuate across time and can reflect many factors unrelated to their skills. The National Academy of Sciences report, ``Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers'' made it clear that more research on assessing young children is needed before such assessments should be used for accountability purposes. Because of this, it is crucial that the assessment instruments to be used in the NRS are properly validated and deemed to be appropriate for 4-year old children. At this point, we have little information about exactly what those instruments are and HHS has not made available the results of pilot tests or the comments made by experts on the content of the assessment.

To my mind, the speed with which this assessment was rolled out makes it unlikely that the measures have been properly developed and tested. It has also become clear that the assessment targets only a few of the skills that Head Start seeks to instill in children. For example, social skills are not being assessed and it is clear that without them, children are simply not ready to learn.

It is also very important that sufficient time be taken to insure that English language learners are not put at a disadvantage by being given a test that is not appropriate for them. The test is in English and Spanish, and yet many Head Start children speak Asian or other languages. In my home State of New Mexico, for example, I have heard from Native American Head Start Directors who are concerned that the NRS, in its current form, is not appropriate for their students, who often do not speak English in the home. We should take the time to insure that the assessment tool that is ultimately used is valid and reliable, assesses the gamut of skills that children acquire in Head Start, and is appropriate for children from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds.

It is also crucial that throughout the process of developing these instruments, there is ample consultation both with the public and with experts in early childhood development and research methodology. The results of these consultations and decisions regarding the NRS should be made public. Although HHS claims that they have had many meetings with ``experts'', there is little or no information publicly available that clarifies what went on at these meetings, what decisions were reached, and whether the advice of the experts was or was not heeded in developing the NRS. To date, there has been no Congressional oversight or public task force convened. Development of an assessment tool as important as this one should not occur behind closed doors. Congress and the public have a right to participate in and comment on this process.

My bill would help to insure that the NRS is developed in the proper fashion. The Secretary of HHS would be required to halt the full-scale implementation of the NRS until such time as Congressional oversight hearings have been held, the Secretary has concluded public forums on this issue, and the National Academy of Sciences has conducted a study using a panel of nationally recognized experts in early childhood assessment, child development, and education. The NAS study would provide specific information regarding: a. the skills and competencies that are predictive of school readiness and academic success in young children, b. the

development, selection, and use of instruments to assess literacy, mathematical, emotional and social skills as well as health and physical well-being young children, c. the proper use of early childhood assessments to improve Head Start programs and d. the steps needed to ensure that assessments take into account the racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity of Head Start students, among other things.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Head Start is the flagship educational program for low-income children. Studies clearly show that children who attend Head Start programs show gains in their cognitive and social skills, but we also know that more can and should be done for this vulnerable population. Assessments can be an important means to insure that quality is maintained in each Head Start program, but poorly developed or implemented assessments can do more harm than good. Let's take our time, consult with the experts and the public, and come up with a National Reporting System that we can all be proud of.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I take a few minutes today to speak about recent events on The National Mall. The Mall, as Judge Buckley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has written, ``is an area of particular significance in the life of the Capital and the Nation.'' It is a 2-mile green area that stretches from the Capitol in the east to the Lincoln Memorial in the west. It is, as another judge noted, ``the site of monuments marking great figures and events in our Nation's history.'' But it is more than home to these enduring symbols of our nationhood. This judge went on to say: ``Its grassy expanse provides areas for any number of recreational activities. . . .''

The National Mall has also been used, of course, for large-scale events.

It is used for the Fourth of July festivities each year and for the Cherry Blossom Festival. Every 4 years, it is used for our inaugural celebrations. It has been the site of national observances and protests--some of the most famous in our Nation's history. ``It is here,'' as Judge Buckley went on to say, ``that the constitutional right of speech and peaceful assembly find their fullest expression.''

Mr. President, Congress has entrusted the Department of the Interior, and particularly the National Park Service within the Department of the Interior, with preserving and regulating the use of this important part of our national heritage. It has, according to the statute, charged the National Park Service with regulating the use of The Mall so as to ``conform'' such use ``to the fundamental purpose'' of ``conserving the scenery and natural and historic objects . . . and providing for the enjoyment of the same in such manner . . . as will leave them unimpaired for their enjoyment by future generations.''

The Mall, as I have said, serves many purposes. None of those purposes that have been identified by the Congress or in regulation are commercial purposes. Accordingly, the National Park Service regulations provide that demonstrations and special events on The Mall may be held only pursuant to permit issued by the Park Service. The rules prohibit the commercial use of The Mall and specifically provide that ``no sales shall be made . . . and no article may be exposed for sale without a permit. . . .''

Despite the clear prohibitions in its own regulations, the Park Service has now sanctioned a new use for this area. That use, unfortunately, can only be called commercial exploitation.

Earlier this month, to promote the start of the new football season, the National Football League held what the Department of the Interior described as a music and football festival entitled the ``NFL Kickoff Live From The National Mall Presented by Pepsi Vanilla.'' That was the official title of the event. To allow for the setup and removal of infrastructure associated with this concert, the Park Service gave the NFL a permit to use The Mall for 17 days--the period between August 25 and September 10. The main event occurred on September 4. For many of those days, much of The Mall was fenced off and the public was prevented from using it, although it obviously is one of the most popular spaces in our Nation's Capital.

I have spent a great deal of time on The Mall, as I am sure my colleagues have, and I can tell you that currently, even without this kind of extravaganza, it is difficult to walk the length of The Mall from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial. Large areas are closed because of construction of the World War II Memorial and also construction of new security features at the Washington Monument. Portions of The Mall are also closed periodically following events, such as the Fourth of July activities or after large public gatherings, to allow for cleanup and restoration of the grassy areas.

In this case--the case of this NFL extravaganza--a large segment of The Mall was essentially closed to the public to allow for what, in my opinion, can only be characterized as commercial use and as advertising by private corporations.

Let me start with this photograph and show that corporate sponsors of the concert that occurred on September 4 were allowed to put up a large fence covered with advertising. This advertising talks about the kickoff of 2003 NFL, live from Washington, DC; AOL for broadband; Pepsi Vanilla; Coors Light, and Verizon. This is advertising, in my view. This is clearly commercial activity.

Apart from keeping the public off The Mall, the clear message to the public was that The Mall had been turned over to these companies for commercial purposes.

The National Park Service has published guidelines to help organizations that want to hold events on The Mall to know what is required. The guidelines state:

The theme of a special event must be consistent with the

mission of the park--

In this case, we are talking about The Mall. These guidelines apply to all of our national parks in the capital region.

They go on to say:

and appropriate to the park area in which it is to be held,

including consideration for possible damage and/or impairment

to park property, facilities, plantings and landscape

features . . . and park values.

Our Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, whose agency approved the permit for this event, maintains today that this was an appropriate use of The Mall because it was undertaken in partnership with the Department's ``Take Pride in America'' slogan promoting voluntarism on public lands and because it was an event honoring members of our Armed Forces.

Clearly, nobody objects to an event celebrating public volunteers or honoring military personnel.

However, Secretary Norton's stated rationale for approving the event is simply not consistent with what actually took place on The Mall. It is not consistent, when you look at the banner surrounding The Mall, to say this has anything to do with voluntarism or recognizing the military.

This is a photograph of the event. Let me show another photograph which I think makes the case rather convincingly. This is a photograph of the event which was published in the Washington Post. This, evidently, is Secretary Norton's vision of an appropriate use of The Mall.

It is impossible to miss the advertisements for Pepsi Vanilla or for Verizon, for Coors, and for its other sponsors, and you certainly cannot miss the huge football promoting the National Football League. It is almost impossible, I suggest, to the untrained eye to find references to the supposed reasons for the event. The ``Take Pride in America'' slogan does appear at the bottom of the advertising banners, and in the other photo it appears at the top of the fence, but I am certain that nobody from any distance--I can barely read it from here-- I am sure nobody can read it from any reasonable distance.

This photograph makes the point that the overwhelming image is turning over The Mall for commercial advertising. The event was used as the basis for a commercial television production. Commercials were broadcast to the crowd over large televisions that were located on The Mall itself.

The Secretary of the Interior may view this as business as usual, but, in my view, allowing this type of commercial activity with blatant product advertising is contrary to what the policy is for our national parks, including The Mall. It is also contrary to what responsible public policy should be in this area.

During her confirmation hearing, I expressed concern to Secretary Norton that as Secretary of the Interior she would hold one of the highest positions of public trust in our Nation's Government. The Secretary of the Interior is the principal guardian of our national parks and our most revered historic sites. Certainly, The National Mall is among the most important symbolic spaces in our country.

I was concerned that based on her previous public statements and writings, she had a long record of having championed the interests of corporations in opposition to the Federal Government. At her confirmation hearing, Secretary Norton assured me she would enforce the laws as written, and it is my understanding that in this case the laws and regulations of the Park Service made very clear The National Mall is not to be used as a venue for commercial purposes. It is not to be used as a venue for advertising. I do not see how anyone can look at these photos and believe the Secretary carried out her responsibilities in this instance.

Earlier this year, the Senate passed legislation to authorize construction of an education center near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, very much along the lines of a similar bill we passed in the Senate during the last Congress. I was involved in negotiating the language for that bill and tried to ensure that the National Park Service retained its ability to approve the site and the design of the center, and at the request of the Park Service we included language stating the center should be built ``consistent with the special nature and sanctity of The Mall.''

If these photographs reflect Secretary Norton's definition of ``the special nature and sanctity of The Mall,'' I have great concern about what, in

fact, we are going to wind up protecting with regard to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. What can we reasonably tell those who intend to operate the educational center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is not permitted if, in fact, all of this is permitted?

The National Park Service regulations generally prohibit commercial advertising on public lands. In addition, the specific permit that was issued related to this event stated no commercial activity was to be conducted. Nevertheless, the Department of the Interior decided the activity we see in this photograph was not commercial activity; that these banners were not advertisements. In the view of the Park Service, these were ``sponsor recognition.'' That is a distinction I was unaware of, between advertising and sponsor recognition. But clearly, the National Park Service believes that distinction needs to be maintained.

Even though the National Football League was the organization that sponsored the concert, it was permitted to solicit other companies to underwrite the event's expenses, and those other companies in turn were permitted to advertise on The Mall or, as the Interior Department put it, to obtain ``sponsor recognition.''

It is not clear where the authority comes from for this decision by the National Park Service to allow such ``sponsor recognition.'' The agency's regulations clearly prohibit the display of commercial notices or advertisements on National Park Service lands except where the park superintendent determines the notices relate to products at that park area and the superintendent determines the notices are ``desirable and necessary for the convenience and guidance of the public.'' I do not see how these banners, these fence advertisements fit in to that requirement.

It would have been one thing if this event had occurred and following it the Interior Department and the National Park Service had admitted a mistake had been made and they would take appropriate steps to prevent this from occurring in the future. But the leadership of the Interior Department and the Park Service, from Secretary Norton on down, makes no such admission. They continue to insist this was entirely appropriate.

Secretary Norton may not care whether this type of event takes place again on The Mall, but I do, and I think many of my colleagues will when they become better informed about this situation.

To better understand the Secretary's reasoning that this was not, in fact, commercial activity, that there was no commercial advertising taking place, I am sending a letter to the Secretary requesting copies of the correspondence and the e-mails and the planning memos and other documents the Secretary relied on in concluding this was not commercial activity.

The Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service leadership maintain that commercial activity is not allowed on The Mall; what took place here was not commercial. Since there apparently is a disconnect between what they say and the reality of what, in fact, took place, I think the only solution is to change the law to make it clear, even to the Secretary, that this type of use is not appropriate on The Mall.

When the Interior appropriations bill comes to the floor, I intend to offer an amendment to make it clear that future permits to hold special events on The Mall may not include commercial advertising, whether they couch that as ``sponsor recognition'' or not. I want to emphasize The Mall clearly should continue to be available for large-scale events.

If the Secretary had approved a large concert to celebrate our troops or to promote her volunteer program, then there would not have been a public outcry such as we have seen as a result of this situation. It was her decision to allow the concert to be used for commercial purposes, to allow the commercial advertising that occurred here that, in my view, crossed the line.

If the Department of the Interior and National Park Service officials had made any effort to advocate the protection of the resource with which they are charged to manage, then this would not have been a problem. Since they have refused to do so, it seems to me we must change the statute.

Last week, Albert Eisele of the Hill newspaper wrote an excellent article entitled ``Desecration of The Mall.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post editorial entitled ``Marketing the Mall,'' and an article by Tom Shales in the Washington Post entitled ``America, Brought To You by . . . '' be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, The National Mall is more than just an expanse of grass or an undeveloped field. It is a national treasure. By the National Park Service's own account, it is the single most significant public park and open space in our Nation's Capital. It is visited by millions of citizens and visitors from abroad each year.

It provides a formal work of landscape architecture of monumental proportions and provides the unifying element for the carefully placed, diverse architectural symbols, repositories and shrines of the heritage of our democracy on and along its length.

There has been broad public agreement both in Washington and around the country that allowing the type of activity that occurred at these commercial events is a new low point in the storied history of The Mall. Perhaps this will only be remembered as an unfortunate incident, but we need to make sure that this is not the model for future events on The Mall. We need to act to prohibit increased commercialization in our national parks, and a good place to start is acting to protect The Mall.

When we do get to the actual voting on the issue, I hope my colleagues will support the effort to protect The Mall from further commercial exploitation.

Exhibit 1

[From the Hill, September 10, 2003]

Desecration of the Mall

(By Albert Eisele)

An older colleague who wrote a daily column in the St. Paul

Pioneer Press when I worked there many years ago once told me

his best columns were those generated by a sense of outrage.

If so, this should be one of my best columns, as few things

have offended me more than the disgraceful display of

mindless patriotism, insatiable commercialism and sheer bad

taste perpetrated last week by the National Football League

with its $10 million rock concert extravaganza on the Mall.

I wasn't there and didn't watch it on ABC-TV--thank God--

but one photograph in Friday's Washington Post convinced me

that aside from the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon and

subsequent anthrax attacks, last fall's sniper shootings or

the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan, this was

the worst thing that's happened here during my nearly 40

years in the nation's capital.

The spectacle of pop singer Britney Spears being stripped

to her black bikini bottoms to just above pubic level by a

pair of male dancers wearing Washington Redskins jerseys,

with the Capitol shining in the background, was so jarring

that it made me want to cringe.

Spear's display of erotic gyrations and lip-synched lyrics

may have a place in our appalling, vulgarized popular culture

but definitely not in the middle of the nation's most

hallowed public space.

It was bad enough that this dreadful promotion designed to

kick off the 2003 pro football season--and sell Pepsi

Vanilla, AOL and Reeboks--took place just a week after the

40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's immortal ``I Have a

Dream'' speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Or that

it took place just before the second anniversary of the awful

day when Islamic terrorists crashed a jetliner into the

Pentagon and were barely prevented from flying over the Mall

to crash another into the White House or the Capitol.

But it was even worse that President Bush and Interior

Secretary Gale Norton were persuaded to serve as cheerleaders

for a so-called game that celebrates violence--as if we don't

have enough already--and that has owners who personify

rapacious greed. This was nothing more than the desecration

of a sacred space and an insult to the men and women of the

U.S. military whom the event's promoters professed to honor.

The president perhaps can be excused from accepting bad

advice but not those who persuaded him to lend the dignity of

his office to an event that left the rain-soaked Mall

trampled and garbage-strewn, both physically and

symbolically.

Somebody, ideally the congressman whose committees oversee

the Department of Interior and the National Park Service,

should

demand an explanation of who was responsible for allowing

this travesty to happen.

If they don't, what can we expect to see next? An ad for

Viagra on the Washington Monument? A pitch for McDonald's at

the Lincoln Memorial or Toyota at the Jefferson Memorial? Or

maybe even a banner on the Capitol Dome offering low-interest

loans from Citibank to ease the federal deficit?

I have nothing against pro football, and I'm glad the

Redskins won their opener, even as I despair of Major League

Baseball ever returning to Washington. Nor do I disagree that

many in the crowd that the NFL generously estimated at

125,000 thought it was wonderful that Britney and her fellow

entertainers were invited to do their thing on the Mall.

Nevertheless, I'm outraged and saddened. This was a low

point for a special space that stands for so much in America.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I am glad to withhold that request.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Harkin amendment related to proposed administration changes to overtime regulations, and I am pleased to be a co-sponsor.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established that--with only a few specific exceptions--American workers were entitled to overtime pay, meaning time and a half wages, for every hour worked beyond the accepted 40-hour work week. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not passed out of context. The legislation derived from the labor abuses that occurred in the early 1900s. Furthermore, it was signed into law because political and labor leaders at that time agreed that workers should not be pushed beyond their breaking point. By making every hour beyond 40 more expensive, the legislation discouraged employers from assigning longer hours and rewarded employees for sacrificing their personal or family time for their company. Workers could still work longer hours if they chose to do so, or if they needed additional income--many do so today--but they could not be required to do so by their employers, and they could not be required to do so at the same wage level they earned during their 40-hour work week.

I think this was a perfectly reasonable bargain to have made then, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable bargain now. It is a form of social contract--one of many made at the time that have extended to the present because they make good rational sense. And I am strongly of the view that it should not be broken at this time.

The Bush administration has recently proposed substantial regulatory changes that dramatically alter this social contract, and the underlying principles that form its foundation. Under the guise of ``flexibility'' for employees, it has decided to change the categories that will classify a worker as eligible for overtime, and in doing so, will vastly increase the number of employees that are exempt from overtime pay. The Department of Labor has estimated that the proposed changes will affect only 644,000 workers. But the Economic Policy Institute has concluded that the numbers are significantly miscalculated and the correct figure is closer to 8 million. This includes everyone from police officers, no firefighters, to registered nurses, to medical technicians, to floor supervisors in service industries, to paralegals, to journalists--any number of individuals that currently earn more than $22,100 per year.

Worse, many of these individuals are currently in professions that are essential to national security or difficult to fill. In my State of New Mexico, for example, the proposed regulations would have very profound effects. According to an analysis undertaken by the New Mexico Department of Labor, over 37,000 workers will lost overtime benefits as a result of the proposed rule change. Many of these workers are in professions that we need in the State and we may lost if salaries are decreased--specialty fields like teachers, physical therapists, health care technicians, first responders, and so on. For the life of me I don't see why the Bush administration would be providing disincentives for people to work in fields where we need them the most. Why are we telling teachers, or nurses, or firefighters that we don't value the extra time you put in on the job? In my State these folks are frequently living on a shoestring as it is. How can the Bush administration justify a policy that takes money away from them?

I have three specific problems with the proposed overtime regulations. First, as I have mentioned previously, it pulls back from the social contract made with American workers in the past. I don't understand what has changed over the last few years to require that overtime rules be altered, and I don't believe it is time to alter an agreement that at its core is designed to allow Americans to be rewarded for hard work and spend more time with their families.

Second, I think it's the wrong time for change. We have now some of the worst economic conditions that we have seen in years in this country. Levels of unemployment continue to climb, so much so that many workers have simply given up looking for work. Why are we telling those who have work at this time that they should get less for what they do? Why are we telling these folks they have to take a pay cut? Why are we taking money out of the pockets of these folks, money that these days go to make ends meet, but can also go for mortgages, education, and savings accounts?

Third, given the current record of the Bush administration on key labor issues--be it outsourcing, minimum wage, FMLA, workplace protections, or anything else--I am not convinced that it is time to give it ``flexibility'' to apply regulations of any type that will affect American workers. From what I have seen so far, I think the administration has taken a very clear stance against the low- and middle-income workers that form the very heart and soul of this country, and I think it is time that we push back on these policies.

I think it is essential that we send an unequivocal message to the Bush administration that we will not allow changes on the overtime regulations to occur. I believe it is bad policy that will hurt working Americans at a time when they need our support.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1588 for consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment is offered by myself and Senators Lautenberg, Cantwell, Baucus, Stabenow, Levin, Durbin, Pryor, Lincoln, Kennedy, Kerry, and Feinstein.

This is an issue that I think deserves a little more attention before we complete action on this appropriations bill.

This an amendment that relates to LIHEAP, which is an acronym we use in the Congress and in Washington to talk about the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

I ask unanimous consent that letters from the American Gas Association, the Campaign for Home Energy Assistance, and the Southern States Energy Board endorsing this amendment be printed in the Record following my statement.

Madam President, this amendment, as I have proposed it, would increase funding in the bill for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $1 billion for this next fiscal year. The amendment would bring the total funding for the LIHEAP State grants up to $3 billion rather than the $2 billion that is provided in the bill.

These grants are allocated at the beginning of each fiscal year to each of the 50 States and to the territories and Indian tribes on the basis of a statutory formula.

Let me begin by saying, Senator Specter, the manager of this bill, and Senator Harkin, the ranking member on the subcommittee, have consistently championed the LIHEAP program in the appropriations process. But it is clear they do not have room in this budget resolution that was presented to adequately fund this program.

Obviously, the question is, Why did we adopt a budget resolution that did not provide room? I certainly think that is where the mistake was made and where I disagreed with many of my colleagues.

The amount of funding for LIHEAP that has been appropriated in the past has been enough to help 15 percent of the households that are eligible for that assistance. And as to those 15 percent, for the families who are covered and actually have received that help, the average grant they have received has covered about 10 to 25 percent of their home energy costs.

We had an amendment earlier today by Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Collins of Maine on this very same issue--not on this exact issue but on adding funds. They proposed to add $300 million to the emergency funding available under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Now my proposal is to add $1 billion to the core program--not the emergency part of it but the core program.

I point out to my colleagues that 49 Senators voted for that amendment as compared to 46 who voted against it, but the amendment failed. And just for those who have not followed our procedure that closely, why would an amendment fail when more Senators supported it than opposed it? It failed because those Senators were not able to get a full 60 votes which were needed to waive the Budget Act.

Well, the question is, Why did they need to waive the Budget Act for that amendment? The amendment contained an offset so that it was not, on a net basis, going to cost more, but we are advised that the offset was not adequate to meet the Budget Act requirements. In fact, the very underlying bill we are going to vote on, presumably later this evening, violates the Budget Act as well.

So we have a situation where the majority of Senators present and voting cannot prevail on an issue they believe is important because of the Budget Act provisions we imposed on ourselves and with which I strongly disagree.

LIHEAP funding has remained essentially level without adjustment for inflation over the last 20 years. We all know the cost of energy to our households around the country has increased very substantially. Now 60 percent of our homes are, in fact, heated by natural gas and, in fact, cooled by that same energy source.

The Department of Energy predicts an average price delivered to the consumer this year of $9.42 per thousand cubic feet for the cost of natural gas. That $9.42 compares to $6.69 that the average consumer had to pay in 1999.

Compared to last winter, which was a very tough winter for gas consumers, the Energy Information Agency predicts costs will be at least 10 to 15 percent higher this year.

The reason I am raising this issue and talking about it is that I believe we will regret our decision to not provide additional funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program when we get further into this winter.

Forty-three of my colleagues in the Senate joined me in a bipartisan letter to Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin requesting that this core Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program be funded at the level of $3 billion for this next year. They have not been able to do that.

We are faced with another winter heating season in which there is a great potential for very high natural gas costs, very high heating oil prices for consumers. There will be many low-income Americans who will have great difficulty dealing with those increased prices.

The obvious question that will be asked of us and should be asked of us is what is our plan to deal with the expected high costs of energy this winter? Unfortunately, our answer is, we are going to maintain level funding for LIHEAP. That is not an adequate answer. It is not an adequate answer for this administration or for this Congress. For us to say we are sorry, we couldn't do any better because the budget resolution wouldn't let us, the budget resolution was voted on by a majority of Senators, was approved by a majority of the Senators. Clearly, the Senate shares the responsibility to find a solution to the problem.

Exhibit 1

American Gas Association,

September 8, 2003.

Dear Senator: On behalf of the 191 members of the American

Gas Association who serve over 53 million consumers of

natural gas, I am writing in strong support of the Bingaman

and Reed-Collins amendments to increase funding for the Low

Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) during

consideration of the FY04 Labor, HHS and Education spending

bill.

The winter heating season is approaching and it is

imperative that funding for LIHEAP is increased. The LIHEAP

program is woefully under-funded, providing assistance to

approximately 4 million households, or only 15 percent of the

30 million households eligible for assistance. Yet demand for

energy assistance continues to grow due to high unemployment

levels, high energy prices and unpredictable weather

conditions.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the

unemployment rate in August remained extremely high at 6.1

percent. A total of 8.9 million people currently are

unemployed across the country. Job losses were seen in the

manufacturing sector, some travel-related industries, and in

the retail industry.

At the same time, according to the Energy Information

Agency (EIA), compared to last year, this year's energy

prices are 30 percent higher for natural gas, 60 percent

higher for heating oil, 25 percent higher for propane and 11

percent higher for electricity. The high energy prices are

due in large part to the unusually cold winter experienced in

various regions of the country this year, which increased

demand for home heating. Natural gas commodity prices

continue to bounce between $5.00 and $5.25 per mmbtu, and

natural gas storage inventories are 7.5 percent below the

five-year average.

The amendment proposed by Senator Bingaman would increase

LIHEAP funding to $3.0 billion, representing a $1 billion

increase over the $2.0 billion currently proposed in the FY04

Labor, HHS and Education spending bill. The Reed-Collins

amendment would provide an additional $300 million in

emergency LIHEAP assistance. Both of these amendments will be

extremely helpful in protecting low and fixed-income

individuals during the winter heating season, and also will

make available much needed cooling assistance next summer.

We urge you to recognize the impact the weak economy and

the high price of energy is having on low and fixed-income

energy consumers. Low-income energy assistance must be

increased dramatically before we find ourselves in a crisis.

We strongly urge you to support the Bingaman and Reed-Collins

amendments. If you have any questions, suggestions or

concerns, please contact me personally at (202) 824-7111.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

David N. Parker,

President and CEO.

Madam President, in light of the fact that a 60-vote majority would be required for me to prevail on my amendment and in light of the fact that earlier amendment on a related issue by Senators Reed and Collins could not gain more than 49 votes, I will not push for a rollcall vote on my amendment at this time. I do call it to the attention of my colleagues. I hope at some stage before we adjourn this fall we are able to find a way to put additional funds into this very important program so as to head off the very real hardship that is going to be visited upon many of our citizens this winter.

Madam President, I withdraw the amendment.

I yield the floor.