Floor Statements

Mr. President, as the 109th Congress comes to a close, I would like to recognize a longtime public servant and Maryland resident. Anthony J. ``Tony'' Zagami will soon retire as the general counsel of the U.S. Government Printing Office after more than 40 years of Federal service. I met Tony during my first term in the Senate while he was finishing law school and working as a young intern in the Senate Democratic Cloakroom. Tony went on to serve in a number of other positions here on Capitol Hill before leaving in 1990 to become the general counsel for the GPO.

Tony Zagami began his Federal service as a page in the U.S. Senate during the 1960s and will end it as the longest serving general counsel in GPO history. Along the way, he also earned degrees from the University of Maryland School of Business and Public Administration and the George Mason University School of Law. Tony has earned the respect and admiration of many of us here in the Congress as well as his colleagues in other legislative branch agencies and the executive branch. I know that my colleagues here in the Senate would join me in wishing him all the best in health and happiness as he completes a very long and noteworthy career. In retirement, I'm sure that Tony will remain a very active citizen of Montgomery County, MD, where he resides with his wife, Erin, and three children.

Mr. President, could I ask what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, over the last few days, a number of my colleagues have been very generous in coming to the floor and speaking about my service in the Senate. I am deeply grateful to all of them, and my wife is greatly relieved that the session is drawing to a close because she fears, if it continues and I continue to hear these excessively praising speeches, I am going to take it to heart and she is going to have to contend with the aftermath of all this praise. I do thank all of my colleagues for their very generous and their very gracious remarks.

As my service in the Senate draws to a close, I am above all profoundly grateful for the trust that the people of Maryland placed in me for the last 40 years--first as a State legislator, then three terms in the House of Representatives, and now five terms in this distinguished body. I think that trust is the greatest honor that any American could hope to have. I am deeply appreciative of it.

I could not have risen to the challenge that these opportunities for public service have provided without the constant support and the wise and reasoned counsel of my family. First of

all, and above all, my wife Christine, whose high standards and dedication to our family and to our country are beyond measure and have been a constant source of inspiration to me. The support and commitment of my children, their spouses and their children has been deeply gratifying, and I am indebted to them for the encouragement they have always provided and also, if I may say so, for their astute criticism, on occasion. My sister and my brother and their families have also been, as one would expect, a constant source of strength, and I am deeply grateful to them.

My parents came to this country as immigrants from Greece, both my mother and father, and it was from them that I first learned about the meaning of a democratic society and the potential it offers to move up the ladder of opportunity on the basis of ability, hard work, and conviction. Their memory is still a very powerful influence in my life.

I could not have met the responsibilities of this office without the support of staff who have been ever ready to work at the highest levels of competency, often under great pressure, and to stand up always for what they believe is right. I am deeply grateful for the principled dedication and sharp intelligence they have brought to their responsibilities--whether they were serving on my office staff in Washington or in my offices across the State of Maryland; whether on the staff of the Banking Committee, the Foreign Relations, the Budget and the Joint Economic Committees on which I have served, or the staff of the Senate generally, on whom the efficient functioning of this legislative body depends.

I think it is important to pause from time to time to think of the many men and women--they are sitting right here at the tables and outside the doors and all across the Capitol and in the office buildings--who make it possible for us to function and who bring a dedication to their work that is greatly encouraging. In fact, it has been a source of encouragement and inspiration to me. Working with all of the staff and in particular, of course, my own personal staff, has been one of the great rewards of serving in public office.

I leave the Senate confident that Maryland's representation in this body will be in good hands. For the past 20 years, it has been a privilege to work closely with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who will soon become our State's senior Senator. What a fighter she is for a better America. And what a path-breaker she has been in the course of her political career.

It was likewise a privilege to work with her predecessor in this body, Senator Mathias, with whom I developed a close friendship. Both have been wonderful partners.

It is especially gratifying to know that, in the 110th Congress, Benjamin Cardin will take this seat and be Maryland's junior Senator. Ben Cardin has given extraordinary public service to the people of Maryland. As a Member of the House of Representatives, he has for 20 years represented our Third Congressional District with great distinction, and prior to entering the House of Representatives, he served for 20 years with equal distinction in the Maryland legislature, including an outstanding tenure as Speaker of the House of Delegates. He is an experienced legislator of the first rank, and he is tireless in carrying out effectively the responsibilities of his office. I know my colleagues will enjoy their work with him in the coming Congress.

My wife and I are gratified that our eldest son John will, in January, be sworn in as a Member of the House of Representatives to represent the Third Congressional District in the 110th Congress.

Throughout my years in public service, I have worked to the limits of my ability to provide the people of Maryland and the Nation dedicated, informed, and independent representation based upon the fundamental principles of integrity and intelligence. I have been guided in this effort by a vision of a decent and just America, based on a strong sense of community and offering fairness and opportunity to all its people. These values and that vision were shaped by my family and the community where I grew up, by the pride my Greek immigrant parents took in their citizenship in their adopted country, and by the high standards of service that community leaders set in a small community on Maryland's Eastern Shore, Salisbury, MD, as I was growing up. Those values and that vision are as clear and as steady today as they were when I first entered public service.

Service in this body has reinforced, many times over, my understanding and commitment to the institutions upon which our system of democratic governance critically depends. I have constantly kept in mind the words reportedly spoken by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention. We are marking this year, of course, as my colleagues know, the tercentenary of Franklin's birth. The story is told that, as he came out of the Constitutional Convention, the oldest delegate there, a woman in the streets of Philadelphia called out to Franklin and said:

What is it to be, Dr. Franklin, a monarchy or a Republic?

And Franklin's reply was:

A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.

A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it--the challenge that Franklin uttered that day in the streets of Philadelphia is a challenge each generation of Americans face. All Americans bear the responsibility to rise to Franklin's challenge but none more so than the Members of this body.

I have been honored to serve with Members, past and present, who have embraced the challenge and sought, through common effort, often under difficult circumstances, to strengthen our Republic and to make the promise of America a reality for all of our people.

As I prepare to leave the Senate, I want my colleagues to know how deeply I appreciate their friendship and counsel and how highly I value the privilege of having been their colleague. So long as the vision of America's promise continues to shine brightly in this body, I have every confidence that our Nation will prevail in the face of great challenges and that its future will be assured.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this legislation, S. 2568 and its House companion H.R. 5466, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act, would create the Nation's first national ``watertrail'' and honor one of America's earliest explorers, Captain John Smith and the vital role he played in the founding of the first permanent English settlement in North America at Jamestown, VA, and in exploring the Chesapeake Bay region during the years 1607 to 1609.

Many Americans are aware of the upcoming 400th anniversary of Jamestown next year. The celebration is expected to draw record numbers of visitors to this area, including Queen Elizabeth II, as part of her recently announced state visit. What may not be as well known is that Jamestown and John Smith's voyages of exploration in present-day Virginia and Maryland were our Nation's starting points. America has its roots right here in the Chesapeake Bay region nearly 400 years ago--13 years before the founding of the Plymouth colony--when the Jamestown colonists disembarked from their three small ships on May 13, 1607. Under the leadership of Captain John Smith, the fledgling colony not only survived but helped ignite a new era of discovery in the New World.

With a dozen men in a 30-foot open boat, Smith's expeditions in search of food for the new colony and the fabled Northwest Passage took him nearly 3,000 miles around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from the Virginia capes to the mouth of the Susquehanna. On his voyages and as president of the Jamestown Colony, Captain Smith became the first point of contact for scores of Native-American leaders from around the bay region. His friendship with Pocahontas is now an important part of American folklore. Smith's notes describing the indigenous people he met and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem are still widely studied by historians, environmental scientists, and anthropologists. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of the significance of Smith's explorations: ``When we contemplate the dangers, and the hardships he encountered, and the fortitude, courage and patience with which he met them; when we reflect on the useful and important additions which he made to the stock of knowledge respecting America, then possessed by his countrymen; we shall not hesitate to say that few voyages of discovery, undertaken at any time, reflect more honour on those engaged in them, than this does on Captain Smith.''

What better way to commemorate this important part of our Nation's history and honor John Smith's courageous voyages than by designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail? The Congress established the National Trails System ``to provide for the ever- increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and in order to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation.'' National Historic Trails such as the Lewis and Clark Trail, the Pony Express Trail, the Trail of Tears, and the Selma to Montgomery Trail were authorized as part of this system to identify and protect historic routes for public use and enjoyment and to commemorate major events which shaped American history. In my judgment, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail is a fitting addition to the 13 national historic trails administered by the National Park Service.

Pursuant to legislation we enacted as part of the Fiscal 2006 Interior Appropriations Act, in September 2006 the National Park Service completed a detailed study which found that the trail meets all three criteria for designation as a national historic trail: it is nationally significant, has a documented route through maps or journals, and provides for recreational opportunities. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail, this new historic trail will inspire generations of Americans and visitors to follow Smith's journeys, to learn about

the roots of our Nation, and to better understand the contributions of the Native Americans who lived within the bay region. Equally important, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail will serve as a national outdoor resource by providing rich opportunities for education, recreation, and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 million Americans living in the bay's watershed but for visitors to this area. The water trail would allow voyagers in small boats, cruising boats, kayaks, and canoes to travel from the distant headwaters to the open bay--an accomplishment that will generate national and international attention and participation. The trail would complement the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Program and help highlight the bay's remarkable maritime history, its unique watermen and their culture, the diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements, and our current efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary.

This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Congress and in the States through which the trail passes. The trail proposal has been endorsed by the Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and numerous local governments throughout the Chesapeake Bay region. The measure is also strongly supported by the National Geographic Society, the Conservation Fund, the Garden Club of America, the Izaak Walton League of America, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission as well as scores of businesses, tourism leaders, private groups, and intergovernmental bodies. I want to especially recognize and commend Patrick Noonan, chairman emeritus of the Conservation Fund, for his vision in conceiving this trail. I also want to thank the cosponsors of this measure, Senators Warner, Mikulski, Allen, Carper, Biden, Santorum, Specter, Representative Jo Ann Davis, and the cosponsors of the House companion measure, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on National Parks. Finally, I want to recognize and thank Judy Pensabene and David Brooks of the Senate Energy Committee staff and Ann Loomis in Senator Warner's office for the tremendous assistance they provided in moving the measure forward.

The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Act comes at a very timely juncture to educate Americans about historical events that occurred 400 years ago right here in Chesapeake Bay, which were so crucial to the formation of this great country and our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from West Virginia, our leader here for so many years, for his very generous and gracious remarks. I am deeply appreciative of his exceedingly kind words.

But I want to thank him even more for the extraordinary leadership he has

provided over his service, both in the House of Representatives and, for the last 48 years, in the Senate. I have been here three decades and there is no one during that time who has spoken more eloquently, more perceptively about our Constitution and the role of the Senate within the Constitution, who has sought to strengthen the Senate as an institution and to have it play its role in the checks and balances arrangements which our Founding Fathers established in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.

Senator Byrd again and again has called us to a higher standard. He has urged us over and over to do the right thing, to understand what our roles are as Senators, and, as he said, I know of no issue, certainly in recent times, where he has more pointedly expressed our role than when we considered the issue of giving the President authority to go to war in Iraq. It was Senator Byrd who sounded a clarion call that was heard all across the country, as he raised the basic questions that needed to be raised with respect to an issue of such gravity and significance.

I have been honored to serve with the Senator. I early recognized that the wisest course would be to follow his leadership. Again and again I have been privileged to have the opportunity to do that. I thank him very much for what he just said. I want him to know that as long as he stands on the floor of the Senate, I have confidence that our Constitution and this body as an institution are in good hands.

That is a magnificent service that he renders to the Republic. I thank him very much.

Mr. President, this legislation, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2006, authorizes a total of $1,500,000,000 in matching Federal funds over the next 10 years to help sustain the Federal Government's longstanding commitment to the Washington Metropolitan area's Metrorail system.

In March, 2006, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority celebrated the 30th anniversary of passenger service on the Metrorail system. Since service first began in 1976, Metrorail has grown from a 4.6-mile, five-station, 22,000-passenger system into the Nation's second busiest rapid transit operation. Today the Metrorail system consists of 106.3 miles, 86 stations and carries more than 100 million passengers a year. The Metrorail system provides a unified and coordinated transportation system for the region, enhances mobility for the millions of residents, visitors, and the Federal workforce in the region, promotes orderly growth and development of the region, enhances our environment, and preserves the beauty and dignity of our Nation's Capital. It is also an example of an unparalleled partnership that spans every level of government from city to State to Federal.

As the largest employer in this region, the Federal Government has had a longstanding and unique responsibility to support the Metro system. This special responsibility was recognized more than 40 years ago in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, when Congress found that ``an improved transportation system for the National Capital region is essential for the continued and effective performance of the functions of the Government of the United States.'' Today more than a third of Federal employees in this region rely on Metrorail to get to work, and at rush hour, more than 40 percent of Metro's riders are Federal employees. The service that WMATA provides is also a critical component of Federal emergency evacuation plans for the region. The Federal Government's interest in Metro is ``unique and enduring.''

It took extraordinary perseverance and effort to build the 106-mile Metrorail system. From its origins in legislation first approved by the Congress during the Eisenhower administration, three major statutes-- the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969, the National Capital Transportation amendments of 1979, and the National Capital Transportation amendments of 1990--were enacted to provide Federal and matching local funds for construction of the system. In addition, in ISTEA, TEA-21 and most recently in SAFETEA-LU, we made the Metrorail eligible for millions of dollars in Federal funds annually to maintain and modernize the system, and provided an additional $104 million for WMATA's procurement of 52 rail cars and construction of upgrades to traction power equipment on 20 stations to allow the transit agency to expand many of its trains from six to eight-cars.

But the system is aging and has been experiencing increasing incidents of equipment breakdowns, delays in scheduled service, and unprecedented crowding on trains. In 2004, WMATA released a ``Metro Matters'' report which found a $1.5 billion shortfall in funding over 6 years to meet WMATA's capital and operating needs. A blue-ribbon panel, sponsored by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Greater Washington Board of Trade and the Federal City Council, published a report a year later which concluded that WMATA faces an average annual operating and capital shortfall of approximately $300 million between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2015.

This legislation seeks to provide additional Federal funds to help close this gap. To be eligible for any Federals funds that may be appropriated annually under this legislation, the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia must first enact the required Compact amendments and either establish or use an existing dedicated funding source, such as Maryland's transportation trust fund, to provide the local matching funds. The legislation is still subject to the annual appropriations process, and it is my hope that Federal funding authorized under this act will be forthcoming in future years. I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish a Commission on Global Resources, Environment and Security. The goal of the Commission is to address one of the most serious, long-

term threats facing our Nation--the degradation of the earth's natural life support systems--and to make recommendations for a coordinated, comprehensive, long-range national policy and new strategies to promote global environmental security.

In March 2005, more than 1,300 scientists from 95 countries around the world completed the largest and most comprehensive study of the health of the earth's ecosystems ever undertaken. Known as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the four-year study found that the natural systems that support life on earth--our waters, wildlife and fisheries, air and lands--have been degraded more rapidly and extensively over the past five decades than in any comparable period of time in history. The result has been a substantial loss of biodiversity, a significant increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, depletion of world fisheries and water supplies, excessive nutrient pollution of rivers and coastal waters, and increased risk of emergence of new diseases. The report also found that, unless substantial actions are taken in policies, institutions and practices in the near future to reverse the degradation, the pressure on the planet's ecosystems will continue to increase. In the next 50 years, the world population is expected to grow from approximately 6 billion to more than 9 billion people. Global demand for food is projected to increase by 70-80 percent. Energy consumption is projected to double by 2035 at current growth rates. Globally, as much as 25 percent of freshwater use and 35 percent of irrigation withdrawal is supplied from unsustainable sources. An estimated 7 billion people could face water shortages.

Experts agree that these environmental threats also have profound implications for our national security. According to former Secretary of State Colin Powell . . . ``poverty, destruction of the environment and despair are destroyers of people, of societies, of nations, a cause of instability as an unholy trinity that can destabilize countries and destabilize entire regions.''

As the world's wealthiest nation, the U.S. has the responsibility and the unique capacity to lead the world toward a more sustainable future. The legislation which I am introducing today represents the important step in that direction. It provides for the establishment of an independent commission to examine the state of scientific understanding and current efforts to protect the global environment, to assess the impact of continued global environmental deterioration on U.S. interests, and to make recommendations to address these threats. The last time the Federal Government took a broad in-depth review of international environment and development issues was in the 1970s.

At the launch of Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, stated that, ``only by understanding the environment and how it works, can we make the necessary decisions to protect it.'' The concept of such a Commission is strongly supported by a broad range of leading scientific and foreign policy leaders who have signed the ``Earth Legacy Declaration.'' They assert that: ``We need a national discussion on the fundamental questions of what legacy we will leave our children and grandchildren, and what actions we must take as a nation to ensure that the world we hand down to them is as safe, healthy, and bountiful as the one we inherited.''

We need a new consensus and a foundation upon which to build a renewed U.S. commitment to protect the global environment. I hope my colleagues will join me in this measure to establish this Commission on Global Resources, Environment, and Security.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish a Commission on Global Resources, Environment and Security. The goal of the Commission is to address one of the most serious, long-

term threats facing our Nation--the degradation of the earth's natural life support systems--and to make recommendations for a coordinated, comprehensive, long-range national policy and new strategies to promote global environmental security.

In March 2005, more than 1,300 scientists from 95 countries around the world completed the largest and most comprehensive study of the health of the earth's ecosystems ever undertaken. Known as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the four-year study found that the natural systems that support life on earth--our waters, wildlife and fisheries, air and lands--have been degraded more rapidly and extensively over the past five decades than in any comparable period of time in history. The result has been a substantial loss of biodiversity, a significant increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, depletion of world fisheries and water supplies, excessive nutrient pollution of rivers and coastal waters, and increased risk of emergence of new diseases. The report also found that, unless substantial actions are taken in policies, institutions and practices in the near future to reverse the degradation, the pressure on the planet's ecosystems will continue to increase. In the next 50 years, the world population is expected to grow from approximately 6 billion to more than 9 billion people. Global demand for food is projected to increase by 70-80 percent. Energy consumption is projected to double by 2035 at current growth rates. Globally, as much as 25 percent of freshwater use and 35 percent of irrigation withdrawal is supplied from unsustainable sources. An estimated 7 billion people could face water shortages.

Experts agree that these environmental threats also have profound implications for our national security. According to former Secretary of State Colin Powell . . . ``poverty, destruction of the environment and despair are destroyers of people, of societies, of nations, a cause of instability as an unholy trinity that can destabilize countries and destabilize entire regions.''

As the world's wealthiest nation, the U.S. has the responsibility and the unique capacity to lead the world toward a more sustainable future. The legislation which I am introducing today represents the important step in that direction. It provides for the establishment of an independent commission to examine the state of scientific understanding and current efforts to protect the global environment, to assess the impact of continued global environmental deterioration on U.S. interests, and to make recommendations to address these threats. The last time the Federal Government took a broad in-depth review of international environment and development issues was in the 1970s.

At the launch of Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, stated that, ``only by understanding the environment and how it works, can we make the necessary decisions to protect it.'' The concept of such a Commission is strongly supported by a broad range of leading scientific and foreign policy leaders who have signed the ``Earth Legacy Declaration.'' They assert that: ``We need a national discussion on the fundamental questions of what legacy we will leave our children and grandchildren, and what actions we must take as a nation to ensure that the world we hand down to them is as safe, healthy, and bountiful as the one we inherited.''

We need a new consensus and a foundation upon which to build a renewed U.S. commitment to protect the global environment. I hope my colleagues will join me in this measure to establish this Commission on Global Resources, Environment, and Security.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. I commend Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy of the Committee on Health, Labor, and Pensions for their hard work in putting this bill together and working through the differences with the House prior to today's floor action so that this important legislation can go straight to the President's desk and be signed into law.

There are many important provisions aimed at improving the lives of our senior citizens contained in the Older Americans Act. Today, however, there is one part of the bill to which I want to draw particular attention: Section 203 of the act establishes an Interagency Coordinating Committee that will help the Federal Government work with its partners to meet the growing housing, health care, transportation, and related needs of senior citizens around the country. The Interagency Coordinating Committee will work to better coordinate Federal agencies so that seniors and their families can access the programs and services necessary to allow them to age in place or find suitable housing alternatives. This section draws heavily from S. 705, the Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors Act, which I introduced in Apri1 2005. S.705 was passed by the Senate unanimously on November 15, 2005.

As I said when the legislation first passed, the challenges that confront us as our population ages are growing more urgent. Data from the 2000 census show that the U.S. population over 65 years of age was 34.7 million. This number is expected to grow to over 50 million by 2020. It is projected that by 2030 nearly 20 percent of our population will be over 65; that is, almost one American in every five will be elderly.

As our senior population continues to increase, so will the demand for affordable housing and service options. This is a matter of concern not only for those who will need the services but for families-- children along with spouses. It concerns communities all around the country, as productive and responsible citizens grow older and need help. It is a matter of deep concern for us all because it will affect the well-being of our entire society.

Many of us know, both from academic studies and our own experience with elderly parents or friends, that helping a senior citizen to remain in her home or in her community for as long as possible promotes a better quality of life. In order to help seniors age in place or find suitable alternative housing arrangements, services must be linked with that housing. Seniors must be able to access needed health supports, transportation, meal and chore services, and assistance with daily tasks in or close to their homes. Without needed supports, seniors and their families face difficult and even daunting decisions.

The Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors, known as the Seniors Commission, established by Congress in 1999, found that too often, seniors face premature institutionalization because housing and services are not linked. This results in more expensive care for the person, increased social isolation, and a lower quality of life. According to the Commission's report, ``the very heart'' of its work ``is the recognition that the housing and service needs of seniors traditionally have been addressed in different `worlds' that often fail to recognize or communicate with each other.'' The Commission concluded that: ``the most striking characteristic of seniors' housing and health care in this country is the disconnection of one field from another.'' The creation of the Interagency Coordinating Committee will ensure that this important conversation gets started.

If left unattended, the problem of lack of coordination will increasingly undermine all of our efforts to assure that Americans have access to the services they need as they age. The Interagency Coordinating Committee established by this legislation will increase communication and coordination among Federal agencies while reducing duplication. The committee will also serve as a permanent national platform to address the needs and issues of our aging population.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee will further help to improve collaboration and coordination among the Federal agencies and our State and local partners to ensure that seniors are better able to access housing and services. This committee will work to find new ways to link housing programs and needed supportive services to increase their efficiency, to make them more accessible, and to strengthen their capacity.

The decisions that our seniors and their families must make are difficult enough. They should not be made more painful and burdensome by having to negotiate a confusing maze of programs and services and a multiplicity of administrative procedures. I am hopeful that the Coordinating Committee will be able to focus attention on this problem and cut through the barriers that Americans face to utilizing the programs we have provided for them.

The two members of the Interagency Coordinating Committee specifically named in the legislation are the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, HHS, and Housing and Urban Development, HUD. These two Cabinet members are crucial to achieving the ultimate goal of the committee--to make affordable housing and needed supportive services, which are often health-related services, easier for seniors to access together. The legislation also names many other high-ranking officers from agencies that oversee programs of significant importance to the lives of older Americans as potential members of Coordinating Committee. I urge the President, after signing this legislation, to quickly name the rest of the committee so that it can begin to create the kind of seamless web of housing, health, transportation, and other services for our seniors that this legislation envisions.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy for their strong support for including the idea of the Interagency Coordinating Committee. Katherine McGuire, Greg Dean, and Lauren Fuller from the HELP Committee were absolutely vital in working with Jonathan Miller of my office and the House committee to make sure this important provision was included in the final legislation.

Likewise, my longtime colleague and friend, Senator Mikulski, who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging, and Keysha Brooks-Coley from her subcommittee staff, have been strongly supportive of this provision and have been tireless in their advocacy on its behalf. I greatly appreciate their efforts. As I did when S. 705 first passed, I want to express my thanks to Chairman Shelby for moving S. 705 through the Committee and the Senate floor expeditiously and the Banking Committee staff who helped in achieving this goal, especially Kathy Casey, the former staff director, Mark Calabria, and Tewana Wilkerson.

Finally, I want to thank two former members of my staff, Jennifer Fogel-Bublick and Sarah Garrett, who, at the staff level, were principally responsible for crafting the original legislation and who helped to guide it through this body last year. This accomplishment is very much due to their hard work over the last several years.

Mr. President, the conference report on H.R. 4954 takes important steps toward improving security at our Nation's seaports. It provides much needed funding to upgrade security at our ports, which are considered to be among our most vulnerable assets. Today, less than 6 percent of the 11 million containers that come through our seaports are inspected. While we have made significant investments in upgrading airport security, the administration's budgets continue to shortchange the funding necessary to ensure that the containerized cargo that comes into our country is safe. This legislation takes an important step toward addressing that shortfall.

While the need for action in the area of port security is clearly evident, we must not forget the other parts of our Nation's multimodal transportation network, at which the need is equally great. The legislation passed by the Senate included provisions aimed at addressing threats to public transit, rail, and intercity buses, among others. The Senate took a responsible, comprehensive approach toward securing our Nation's infrastructure. However, the conference report before us does not include those titles. While I support the effort to improve security at our ports, I cannot justify ignoring the needs of these other modes of transportation and continuing to leave Americans at risk.

Moreover, the process by which the decision was made to jettison these critical provisions was sorely lacking in transparency and accountability. The conference committee held only a single public meeting, and conferees were not permitted to offer any amendments to the conference report. When the conference committee met, for the first and only time in a public venue, I observed that this conference presented us with a unique opportunity to address the pressing security needs of our transit systems and to protect the millions of Americans who ride transit every day. I expressed my view that failure to take advantage of this opportunity would be tragic. Unfortunately, this conference report adopts the House position on transit and rail security--which is that our Nation's transit and rail riders will have to wait for another day to see a meaningful Federal commitment to their safety.

I want to focus my remaining remarks on public transportation, which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on which I am the ranking member. The transit provisions in the Senate bill were based on legislation that passed the Senate unanimously in the 108th Congress, and passed again this Congress in the context of this legislation, again unanimously. The Senate bill would have provided grants to our Nation's transit systems to help protect the millions of riders who use subway trains, commuter rail, and buses every single day.

If there is any question as to whether transit is at risk, one need only look at recent events. This summer, seven coordinated bomb blasts devastated commuter rail trains in Mumbai, India, leaving over 200 people dead and 700 injured. Last year, the London subway

system was the target of a tragic attack that left 52 people dead, and in 2004, almost 200 people were killed when bombs exploded on commuter rail trains in Madrid.

In the United States this past May, the Department of Homeland Security issued a specific warning to transit systems to remain alert against possible terrorist attacks. The warning said that four people had been arrested over several months in separate incidents involving videotaping of European subway stations and trains or similar activity, which, the Department went on to say, provides ``indications of continued terrorist interest in mass transit systems as targets.''

The threat to transit is clear. In response, both the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have worked with transit systems to identify steps that can be taken to help prevent and mitigate attacks. In fact, the greatest challenge to securing our Nation's transit systems is not a lack of knowledge of what to do, but rather lack of resources with which to do it. In the words of the Government Accountability Office: ``Obtaining sufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.''

Despite the record of attacks against transit overseas and the identified vulnerabilities here at home, the Federal Government's response to the needs of America's transit systems--which provide 32 million trips every weekday--has thus far been inadequate. In an editorial published shortly after the London subway bombings, the Baltimore Sun stated that, ``Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has spent $18 billion on aviation security. Transit systems, which carry 16 times more passengers daily, have received about $250 million. That is a ridiculous imbalance.''

To begin to address this issue, I worked closely with Chairman Shelby and with Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who have been leaders on this issue, on the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act, which was incorporated into the Senate version of H.R. 4954. The Senate bill authorized $3.5 billion over 3 years in security grants for our Nation's public transportation systems. That money would have been available for projects designed to resist and deter terrorist attacks, including surveillance technologies; tunnel protection; chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive detection systems; perimeter protection; employee training; and other security improvements.

Let me give one example of a critical need right here with respect to Washington's Metro. Their greatest security need is a backup operations control center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration in its initial security assessment and then identified again by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security assessment. This critical need remains unaddressed because it has been unfunded. The Senate bill would have authorized the funding to make this and other urgently needed security upgrades at transit systems around the country.

We know that transit systems are potential targets for terrorist attacks. We know the vital role these systems play in our Nation's economic and security infrastructure. We can wait no longer to address the critical security needs of America's transit systems. The Senate has passed transit security legislation unanimously in each of the last two Congresses. By adopting the House of Representatives' do-nothing position on transit in this conference report, we have lost a unique opportunity to help protect the millions of Americans who use transit every day.

Mr. President, I support this important legislation to enhance competition and improve the Federal oversight of credit rating agencies--S. 3850, as amended, the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006.

I applaud Chairman Shelby for his strong leadership on this issue and am pleased to have worked closely with him on this legislation. The bill also reflects important contributions from Senators Menendez, Schumer, Enzi, and Sununu.

Credit rating agencies play an important and valuable role in the capital markets by providing opinions to investors on the ability and willingness of issuers to make timely payments on debt instruments. These ratings can have significant impact. The Washington Post of November 22, 2004 wrote: ``they can, with the stroke of a pen, effectively add or subtract millions from a company's bottom line, rattle a city budget, shock the stock and bond markets and reroute international investment.''

Investors trust the agencies' impartiality and rely on their ratings. The SEC created the designation of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, NRSRO, which it currently applies to five agencies. Many institutional investors buy debt only if it has been rated by an NRSRO. A Reuters article dated February 1, 2006 stated:

``The SEC designation gives these firms a major advantage in competing for business against other firms.''

Rating agencies earn their revenues pursuant to one of two business models: either by receiving a fee from an issuer to give a rating to that issuer or by charging investors to subscribe for access to the ratings of issuers who do not pay the rating agency. Some NRSROs or their affiliates offer other products and services to the companies, States or other issuers they rate.

In recent years, concerns have been raised about some aspects of the industry. In late 2001, the largest credit rating agencies maintained an investment grade rating on Enron debt after its major financial restatements and until 4 days before Enron's bankruptcy. As a result, as Business Week reported on November 29, 2004, there was a ``barrage of criticism . . . that raters should have uncovered the problems sooner at Enron, WorldCom and other corporate disasters.''

In 2002, concerns about credit rating agencies were raised by Senators Bunning and Enzi and by Consumer Federation of America during the Senate Banking Committee hearings which led ultimately to the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Their concerns prompted the creation of Section 702 of that Act, which directed the SEC to conduct a study of credit rating agencies. The SEC issued a report and, subsequently, published a Concept Release and proposed a regulation to define the term ``NRSRO.''

Many observers feel that more competition would benefit the markets. Two NRSROs, Standard & Poor's and Moody's, control 8 percent of market share and a third, Fitch Ratings, controls an additional 15 percent. Some have also called for a more transparent and shorter application process for recognition to obtain the NRSRO designation. Others have raised concerns about conflicts of interest, including those involving issuers paying for their ratings, NRSROs having a director who holds an executive position in an issuer, and NRSROs that sell other products or services to issuers they rate. Some have raised questions about alleged abusive practices involving ``tying arrangements, solicitation of payment for unsolicited ratings, and threats to modify ratings based on payment for related services.'' That is a letter from former SEC Chairman William Donaldson to Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski dated June 6, 2005.

Under Chairman Shelby's leadership, the Banking Committee has held hearings on credit rating agencies and received testimony from witnesses representing the Securities and Exchange Commission, rating agencies, the bond markets, the mutual fund industry, labor, academics, and financial professionals. Witnesses testified about a number of issues including the NRSRO application process, conflicts of interest, business practices, the appropriate level of Federal regulation and commission authority.

The legislation before the Senate addresses these issues. Under it, a credit rating agency can obtain the NRSRO designation unless the SEC determines that it lacks adequate financial and managerial resources to consistently produce credit ratings with integrity and to comply with its stated methodologies and procedures. It creates a transparent application process for becoming a NRSRO which requires a decision within a time certain. The application must describe procedures and methodologies used to determine ratings, conflicts of interest, the types of ratings intended to be issued, organization structure, and other matters, and must include a code of ethics, certifications from qualified institutional buyers that have used the ratings for at least 3 years and other items. Most parts of the application must be certified annually and updated when there is a material change.

The legislation also requires the commission to adopt rules that prohibit unfair, coercive and abusive business practices; prohibit or require the management and disclosure of any conflicts of interest; and require NRSROs to establish policies and procedures designed to prevent the misuse of nonpublic information.

The bill does not favor a particular credit rating agency business model.

Prior to its mark-up, the bill received strong support from a number of market participants and interested parties. Let me quote from some of their letters: The Bond Market Association said the bill creates ``a clear process using a credible standard for the designation of NRSRO's.''

The Investment Company Institution said it ``brings much needed sunlight to credit ratings by requiring disclosure of an NRSRO's rating criteria, its methodologies and policies, how an NRSRO addresses conflicts of interest (as well as the conflicts themselves), and the organizational structure of an NRSRO.''

The AFL-CIO said it will ``protect the investing public against conflicts of interest within the credit rating agencies . . . [and] encourages in a responsible manner greater competition.''

The Association for Financial Professionals said the bill will ``foster competition, impose accountability and provide the necessary SEC oversight to restore confidence in credit rating agencies and the ratings they issue.''

Consumer Federation of America wrote that it will ``help ensure that only high quality ratings will be used for economically important regulatory purposes'' and praised the bill's requirements for ``certifications by Qualified Institutional Buyers . . . and [for] giving the . . . SEC . . . authority to deny NRSRO status to rating agencies that lack the financial and managerial resources to produce ratings of integrity.''

Financial Executives International said the bill ``will greatly enhance the accountability of rating agencies.''

Fitch said it ``represents a significant step forward to prudently enhance competition in the rating agency industry.''

Fidelity Investments said the bill ``will improve ratings quality by fostering transparency and accountability.''

The Banking Committee passed this legislation without objection on a voice vote on August 2.

The managers' amendment to this legislation exempts the five existing NRSROs from the requirement that they include certifications in the applications they must file to become NRSROs under the new regulatory framework. This amendment also clarifies the role of Federal regulation in the registration, licensing and qualification of NRSROs, and that the legislation would not regulate the substance of credit ratings or the procedures and methodologies that NRSROs use to determine them, subject to the Federal oversight required in various parts of the legislation.

Once again, I commend Chairman Shelby on his leadership on this legislation. In doing so, I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work of Justin Daly on the Chairman's staff and Dean Shahinian on my staff.

I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question about the previous chart?

Mr. President, as I understand it, this figure here reflects the amount of annual growth rate of employment under the Bush administration.

At four-tenths of 1 percent.

We should compare that with the job growth that has taken place in all of these previous administrations. This is the smallest amount until we get back to Herbert Hoover, is that correct?

Right. It is a matter of very great concern. This chart is a dramatic demonstration that this so-called economic recovery has not really produced jobs, which, after all, is one of the main purposes that we seek in terms of the workings of the economy.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Isn't it the case that the VA, in providing health care for veterans, can use its bargaining position with the pharmaceutical companies to get lower drug prices and therefore is in a better position to provide more extensive coverage for the veterans as a consequence? But on the Medicare for our seniors--I remember the Senator opposing that provision so strongly here on the floor--it is prohibited that Medicare enter into this bargaining with the pharmaceutical companies, bulk purchasing, in order to get lower prices on the drugs?

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

If I understand that chart correctly, the people up to the 50th percentile in the last 5 years have actually fallen behind. They have not had an increase, they actually have had a decrease in their real weekly earnings. Is that correct?

Then beyond that, while there has been some increase, it is far less than what occurred in the previous 5 years of the Clinton administration? Is that right?

Of course, that helps to explain what people are thinking about the economy. I know our distinguished colleague from Michigan talked earlier about the increase in health care costs, the increase in tuition costs, education costs, and the increase in energy costs. That is one side of the squeeze on the middle class and working America. But this is the other side of the squeeze on the middle and working Americans. They are being squeezed down in their earnings and they are being squeezed from the other direction by the increase in costs. So they are really caught in a vise. Their income is not as good and key costs are going up--and at a rather rapid rate. Will the Senator agree with that?

Will the Senator yield?

As I understand it, we have had this tremendous runup in the debt. We are just saddling this burden on the next generations.

One of the things that has happened and needs to be underscored, at least as I am informed, is that the amount of the debt that we are borrowing from overseas has escalated tremendously. In fact, we have borrowed more from overseas--in other words, foreign-held debt--under President George W. Bush than all of the previous Presidents combined.

It is not only that we are incurring the debt and the problems that go with that in terms of the future burden, but more of that debt is being held externally by people overseas rather than being held internally. Before, we were paying it to ourselves. It meant working people were paying money to people who held the Government bonds, but at least it was all within the country. Now there is a tremendous tariff on working people to send this money overseas to the debt that is being held abroad.

Isn't that the case?

If the Senator will yield, as the Senator points out, we have become dependent, as Tennessee Williams said, on ``the kindness of strangers.''

On the one hand, we say we are the world's superpower. In many respects, that is quite true. However, economically, the foundations are weakening. They are not as solid and as strong as they once were.

In the last years of the Clinton administration we were running surpluses and paying down the debt. The Bush administration came in and made these very excessive tax cuts at a time when we moved into a war footing. We have never done that before in this country. When we have gone into a war footing we have always concerned ourselves with how to meet the budgetary demands of the war. That did not happen here. All of a sudden we have switched from running surpluses to running these large deficits, year after year after year. The projections are that they will go out into the future as far as the eye can see.

The Bush people say: We will lower the deficit a little bit. As long as we are running the deficit, we are still building up the debt. We are adding to the debt every step of the way. As we noted previously in our discussion, more and more of that debt is being held overseas. To the extent that happens, we are subject to the kind of leverage that others have.

The United States has gone from being the world's largest creditor nation; now we are the world's largest debtor nation.

If the Senator will yield, furthermore, we have an opportunity to strengthen the economy in so many ways, including addressing the Social Security system which can be done with a number of relatively sensible steps.

The Bush administration, of course, has been pressing this privatization. For the moment, they have been beaten back on that and people are turning their attention elsewhere, but it is very clear they have not given up.

The President, at the end of June, said:

If we can't get it done this year I'm going to try next

year. And if we can't get it done next year, I'm going to try

the year after that.

The majority leader in the House of Representatives says:

If I'm around in a leadership role come January [this

coming January], we're going to get serious about it

[privatizing of Social Security].

And the chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security said that privatization would be a top priority in the Congress in 2007.

The American people have to understand this is still very much on the agenda of this administration and its supporters.

Now they want to abolish the estate tax. Why not keep the estate tax and devote the revenues from the estate tax to strengthening the Social Security system? Then there would be a better retirement for everybody.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

In fact, the administration states the problem in such a way I think to sort of panic people, and then use that panic to push them toward the privatization of the Social Security system.

For example, the administration says the Social Security system is bankrupt. The Social Security system is not bankrupt. The Social Security system, at the moment, is taking in more money than it pays out in the trust fund. Of course, the administration then borrows that money to cover its deficits. That is a separate issue. But there is more flowing into the system than is flowing out. That will last until about 2020.

After that, they will start paying out more than flows into the fund, so they will start drawing down the fund. And they can continue to pay out all the benefits until 2046--in other words, 40 years from now, under the projections; of course, the projections are all problematic because it depends a lot on how the economy functions--but under their best projections, before they draw the fund down. At that point, they will still be able to pay 75 to 80 percent of the benefits from what is coming in to the Social Security trust fund. So the worst scenario is a 20- to 25-percent shortfall 40 years from now.

Now, there are many things you can do now, next year, the year after, with an administration that really wants to support the Social Security system, to take care of that problem. The magnitude of that problem is not out of bounds in terms of being able to address it.

But it has been dramatized as though it is an immediate crisis I think to sort of help scare and panic the American people and then have them be more open to these privatization proposals, which, as the able Senator from Rhode Island points out, would be to shift people from a guaranteed benefit--where they are told, as they are with Social Security: You are going to get so much a month and that is guaranteed to you--to a defined contribution plan, where you do not know what you are going to get.

The people who worked at Enron and WorldCom thought they had wonderful retirements. They had these 401(k)s and everything--they thought they had company plans--they thought they had wonderful retirements, and they were going to be living quite well in their retirement years, and it all collapsed. But they still have----

Their Social Security, with its guaranteed benefit every month. So at least they have that basic form. People need to understand how important Social Security is to more than half of Americans who get more than 50 percent of their retirement income from Social Security. And 20 percent of retired Americans get more than 90 percent of their retirement income from Social Security.

So Social Security is really essential to providing that base. In fact, it has helped to lift the seniors out of poverty. It used to be that the age group most in poverty was the elderly. Because of Social Security, essentially--and other things--but because of the

improvements we have made to it now, that is the age group least in poverty. So we have made a substantial change. But Social Security is essential to achieving that.

And I do not know why the administration put it out there. The country rejected it, clearly. And it was reflected by Members of Congress from both parties who said: No, no. And now they continue to talk about coming back to this issue and privatizing. They have not given up on privatizing the Social Security system.

If the Senator will yield further, I think this does much to help explain the anxiety that Americans are feeling about the workings of their economy.

Now, as the Senator so ably showed earlier, working people are being pressed from two directions. Their wages are not going up to keep pace with inflation, and key costs are increasing. That is compounded by the fact that the retired people are in a state of anxiety because they are constantly being told: Social Security will not be there for you-- although I think that is a false cry.

Furthermore, as the increase in educational costs indicates, younger people--not yet in the workforce but moving in that direction--see the opportunities for education and training not opening up but closing down. Senator Stabenow pointed out earlier, we have the most significant cuts in Federal aid to education that we have experienced since the Federal Government began to try to provide assistance in that area.

So through every age group, as they look at the situation, they find themselves being constrained, to deny them the opportunity--the young people--to get an education. Working people are being squeezed badly. And our retired citizens are kept in a constant state of agitation about the safety and the security of their retirement income.

I think that explains why you are getting all these articles now in the major periodicals and in the major newspapers about this sort of anxiety that is running through the society about the workings of our economy. And when they look at it, it is very clear what is happening: the benefits are all being--as that chart indicates--focused right up at the top of the income and wealth scale. And everyone else is left in a state where they are really quite concerned about their future.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4956

Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by the able chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. While the need for improved security at our Nation's ports is clearly evident, we must not forget the other areas of our Nation's multimodal transportation network. The amendment Chairman Shelby has offered would provide grants to our Nation's public transportation systems to help protect the millions of riders who use subway trains, commuter rail, and buses every single day.

This amendment is based on legislation that passed the Senate unanimously in the 108th Congress and legislation that has been reported out again by the Banking Committee in the 109th Congress. We must not wait any longer to pass this needed legislation.

If there is any question as to whether transit is at risk, one need only look at recent events. Less than 2 months ago, 7 coordinated bomb blasts devastated commuter trains in Mumbai, India, leaving over 200 dead and 700 injured. Last year, the London subway system was the target of a tragic attack that left 50 people dead, and in 2004, almost 200 people were killed when bombs exploded on commuter trains in Madrid.

Here, this past May, the Department of Homeland Security issued a specific warning to transit systems to remain alert against possible terrorist attacks. The warning said that four people had been arrested in separate incidents involving videotaping of European subway stations and trains or similar activity, which the Department noted

provides ``indications of continued terrorist interest in mass transit systems as targets.''

The threat is clear. In response, both the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have worked with transit systems to identify steps that can be taken to help prevent and mitigate attacks. In fact, the greatest challenge to securing our Nation's transit systems is not a lack of knowledge of what to do, but rather, a lack of resources with which to do it. In the words of the Government Accountability Office, ``Obtaining sufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.''

In an editorial published shortly after the London subway bombings, the Baltimore Sun stated that, ``Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has spent $18 billion on aviation security. Transit systems, which carry 16 times more passengers daily, have received about $250 million. That is a ridiculous imbalance.''

I commend Chairman Shelby and Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Allard of Colorado. We have all worked together on the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act. As I mentioned, this legislation has now twice come out of the Banking Committee. It authorizes, as the chairman mentioned, $3.5 billion over 3 years in security grants for our Nation's public transportation systems. The money will be available for projects designed to resist and deter terrorist attacks, including surveillance technologies, tunnel protection, chemical, biological, radiological and explosive detection systems, perimeter protection, employee training, and other security improvements.

Let me give one example of a critical need right here with respect to Washington's Metro. Their greatest need is a backup operations control center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration in its initial security assessment and then identified again by the Department of Homeland Security in a subsequent security assessment. This amendment would authorize the funding to make this and other urgently needed security upgrades to transit systems around the country.

We know transit systems are potential targets for terrorist attacks. We know the vital role these systems play in our Nation's economic and security infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which is designed to address the critical security needs of America's transit systems.

I thank Chairman Collins and Senator Lieberman for their acceptance of this amendment, and Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. This is a major step forward.

Mr. President, I would like to add as cosponsors on our side--I didn't pick up all the names Chairman Shelby read, but I have Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Menendez of New Jersey, Senator Clinton of New York, Senator Lieberman, Senator Boxer, and Senator Schumer.

And Senator Stabenow of Michigan.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the amendment now pending?

And we have this unanimous consent request to take 10 minutes in order to proceed; we are trying to help the chairman move this process along.

Madam President, how much time remains?

Madam President, I wish to very strongly underscore the arguments made by my very able colleague, Senator Mikulski, with respect to this amendment. I am very pleased to join with her in offering it.

This amendment would put an end to a very costly and flawed A-76 competitive sourcing study at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which is, of course, one of our foremost military hospitals. There have been numerous and serious flaws in the conduct of this A-76 study. The study has been going on now for 6 years--contrary to law governing the A-76 process. As a result, it has been extraordinarily expensive and promises to be even more expensive if completed.

The Federal employees actually were declared the winner of this competition in September of 2004, only to have that decision reversed earlier this year. The decision was reversed after a whole new set of amendments were made with respect to the bidding process. In fact, the solicitation has been amended a number of times with hundreds of changes, making the process terribly unfair to everyone involved. This particular A-76 is so egregious that it ought to be brought to an end, and that is what this amendment proposes to do.

I believe the situation as it currently stands is also having a detrimental impact on the work being done at Walter Reed. The A-76 study covers base operation support services--workers who deal in landscaping and maintenance. The requirements now are that these A-76 processes cannot go on for more than 30 months--in part to avoid such a disruption in the workforce. However, this study has been going on for more than 6 years. Obviously it is having an impact on the morale of the employees and resulting in a loss in productivity. So I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this amendment, which will bring this costly and flawed A-76 study to an end and help Walter Reed maintain the high level of services which characterizes that fine institution.

I would also add that the BRAC Commission has recommended the consolidation of Walter Reed with the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. That is supposed to take place over the next few years. That seems to me to be an additional argument for adopting this amendment.

In other words, in a very short period of time, Walter Reed will move to a new campus where we will be developing a new, more modern, military hospital. At that point, the base operations workforce will have to be reshaped to fit the needs of this new facility.

So I urge my colleagues to respect the reasonable rules of the bidding process, rules which have been so departed from in this instance. We should adopt this amendment to ensure that this and other competitive sourcing studies are conducted pursuant to the laws and regulations governing the A-76 process.

I very strongly support my colleague. I commend her for her important leadership on this issue. Let's be fair to the employees. Let's honor a reasonable bidding process with its own rules and requirements.

If Federal jobs are to be subject to the competitive sourcing process, Federal agencies should follow the rules and requirements governing that process. That has not been done in this instance, which is the reason I support

the amendment that is pending before us.

I yield the floor.

How much time remains?

I yield myself a minute and a half.

Mr. President, I listened very carefully to my able colleague from Wyoming. I don't quarrel with a lot of what he says, but this process was absolutely flawed. This was not a fair process. The rules were constantly being changed. If we are going to have competitive sourcing, it ought to be done according to the rules, with a respect for the competitive bidding process. That didn't happen here.

This was put out for bid in June of 2000. It is now September of 2006. Under current law, none of these competitions can go on for more than 3 years. In 2004, the Federal employees won this competition. And the Army came back and changed the solicitation and put in new requirements for the bids. It is totally unfair, what is happening here. I respect the competitive bidding process, but there has to be some integrity to it. It has to have some decency to it. That is totally lacking in this situation.

I urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment.