Floor Statements

Mr. President, I commend the very able Senator from Connecticut, not only for the very eloquent statement he made but for the leadership which he has shown with respect to this critically important issue of the right to vote. The Senator from Connecticut has framed and crafted and brought to the floor of the Senate in recent years extremely important legislation designed to assure all Americans their right to the ballot,

thereby strengthening the very fundamentals of our democracy. I would be remiss if I did not take advantage of this opportunity to express the gratitude we all feel to him for his leadership in this area.

The legislation we have before us is as significant as any this Congress will consider. The Voting Rights Act was first signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. The fundamental importance of this law cannot be overstated. It is no exaggeration to say that it both changed the nature of American society and changed the course of American history. More than a quarter of a century before the Voting Rights Act was passed, the great scholar Gunnar Myrdal had written in his landmark study ``An American Dilemma,'' his study of race in this country, that ``the American Negro problem,'' as it was then known, was by no means a problem only for African Americans. Rather, he wrote, it is a problem ``in the heart of the American.''

Myrdal set out what he called the American creed, the abiding principles on which this Nation is founded. The American creed, he said, ``is the cement in the structure of this great and disparate nation . . . encompassing our ideals of the essential dignity of the individual human being, of the fundamental equality of all men [and women], and of certain inalienable rights to freedom, justice, and a fair opportunity.'' These ideals are ``written into the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and into the constitutions of the several states.''

Regrettably for much of our history, our Nation failed to live up to its most cherished principles. Our great challenge, as one observer has put it, has always been ``to live up to the ideals of the American Creed or face a deterioration of the values and visions that unite and make it great.''

Myrdal's study was, in effect, the 20th century equivalent of Thomas Jefferson's ``fire bell in the night.'' Yet more than a generation passed between the publication of Myrdal's study and the passage of the Voting Rights Act. As we debate this legislation and recall the tremendous sacrifices of Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King, after whom the legislation is named, I also call to my colleagues' attention the riveting autobiography of our House colleague Congressman John Lewis who for 20 years has represented Georgia's ninth district with such great distinction.

On March 7, 1965, John Lewis was in Selma, AL, his home State, preparing with hundreds of others to march from Selma to Montgomery to assert the right to vote which at that time was granted or denied solely at the discretion of the State governments. ``Many of the men and women gathered on that ballfield,'' remembers Congressman Lewis, ``had come straight from church. They were still wearing their summer outfits. Some of the women had on high heels.'' Some 600 marchers set out, two abreast. All were prepared, quite literally, to die for the right to vote. And in the police assault that followed, many of them, including Congressman Lewis, nearly did.

President Johnson's response the following Saturday was very clear. He said:

The events of last Sunday cannot and will not be repeated,

but the demonstrations in Selma have a much larger meaning.

They are a protest against a deep and very unjust flaw in

American democracy itself.

Ninety-five years ago our Constitution was amended to

require that no American be denied the right to vote because

of race or color. Almost a century later, many Americans are

kept from voting simply because they are Negroes.

Therefore, this Monday I will send to the Congress a

request for legislation to carry out the amendment of the

Constitution.

In signing the Voting Rights Act, President Johnson said:

The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by

man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible

walls which imprison men because they are different from

other men.

Indeed, the act marked a decisive turning point in the long and arduous road we know as the civil rights movement. Since its enactment, the Voting Rights Act has been extended and amended four times to address problems of bigotry and discrimination that may take subtler forms than those confronting the Selma marchers in 1965, but that are no less insidious in undermining the constitutional principles by which we aspire to live. As our able colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, has noted, in reauthorizing and extending the act, we are, in fact, revitalizing it. We do so not only to honor the courageous men and women who, such as Congressman Lewis and Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King and so many others, risked and in some cases sacrificed their lives to uphold American principles, but to build a stronger foundation for the Nation we will leave to our children and grandchildren.

The committee brought this bill to the Senate floor having constructed a compelling record that shows we have made progress but that entrenched discriminatory practices--some obvious and some hidden--remain. In uniting to support H.R. 9 and enacting this legislation, we will be acting in a spirit true to our better selves, to our Nation, and to the generations yet to come.

Mr. President, our Nation's waterways, harbors, and ports are vital to our economic prosperity, the safety of those who navigate our waters, and to our quality of life. It is estimated that one out of every five jobs in the United States is dependent, to some extent, on commercial activities handled by our ports and harbors. In many instances, ship and barge transport is the safest, cheapest, and cleanest transportation mode. Likewise, our waterways provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, recreational opportunities for boaters, and contribute to the health and well-being of millions of people through their diversity, beauty, history, and natural environment. This legislation authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake water resource projects of great importance to our Nation's and

our states' economy and maritime industry, public safety and to our environment.

I am particularly pleased that the measure includes a number of provisions for which I have fought to help ensure the future health of the Port of Baltimore, the Chesapeake Bay, and Maryland's waterfront communities. With more than 4,000 miles of shoreline around the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean, 126 miles of deepwater shipping channels leading to the Port of Baltimore, some 70 small navigation projects critical to commercial and recreational fisherman and to local and regional economies, Maryland is a State which relies heavily on the navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Over the years, I and other members of the Maryland congressional delegation have worked hard to maintain and improve the Federal channel system--serving the Port of Baltimore and other communities throughout Maryland, to address the severe shoreline erosion problems on Maryland's Atlantic Coast, and to bring the Army Corps of Engineers' expertise to bear in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and Maryland's rivers and streams. While other ports are just now beginning to deepen their channels to 45 or 50 feet, we succeeded in deepening the port's main shipping channel to 50 feet 16 years ago making navigation safer, easier, and cheaper for ships using the channel and assuring that the route can handle the deep draft bulk cargo carriers in use today.

We recently completed two critical safety improvements to the Port's channel system--the straightening of the Tolchester ``S'' turn and the widening and deepening of the Brewerton channel eastern extension--as well as some long-needed improvements to Baltimore harbor's anchorages and branch channels. We constructed a hurricane protection project at Ocean City, MD to help protect the citizens and the billions of dollars in public and private infrastructure in the area and restored the beach at the north end of Assateague Island National Seashore. We also completed numerous environmental restoration projects throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed from Jennings Randolph Lake in western Maryland to the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project--the largest and most environmentally significant island habitat restoration project ever undertaken in the Chesapeake Bay. These projects would not have taken place without the authorities and funding provided in previous Water Resources Development Acts. The measure before us will enable several, much-needed water resource infrastructure projects in Maryland to move forward.

First, the bill authorizes a 50-percent expansion of the Poplar Island environmental restoration project, to provide additional dredged material capacity for the Port of Baltimore and additional habitat for the Chesapeake Bay's wildlife. Initially authorized by section 537 of the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 1996, the Poplar Island project has proved to be a tremendous success and a model for the Nation on how to dispose of dredged material.

Instead of the traditional practice of treating the dredged material as a waste and dumping it overboard, we are putting approximately 40 million cubic yards of clean dredged material from the shipping channels leading to the Port of Baltimore into a productive use, restoring 1,140 acres of remote island habitat in the Chesapeake Bay, creating a haven for fish and wildlife, and helping reduce sediment degradation of the Bay's water quality. This represents a win-win situation for two of Maryland's most important assets--the Port of Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay.

Last year, the Army Corps of Engineers completed two studies--a Baltimore Harbor and Channels Dredged Material Plan, DMMP, and an integrated General Reevaluation Report, GRR/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, SEIS, on the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project--which identified a critical need for new dredged material placement capacity for the Port of Baltimore by 2009 in order to meet Federal and State of Maryland requirements and recommended the expansion of Poplar Island as a preferred alternatives for addressing the dredged material capacity gap in an economically and environmentally sound manner. A subsequent Chief's Report submitted to Congress on March 31, 2006, recommended a 575-acre expansion of the existing Poplar Island and the raising of the island's existing upland cells to add approximately 28 million cubic yards of dredged material placement capacity and extend the project life by approximately 7 years. This measure authorizes the expansion of the existing Poplar Island project as recommended in the Chief's Report. It authorizes $256.1 million for the expansion project, bringing the total cost of the existing project and the expansion project to $643.4 million, with an estimated Federal cost of $482.4 million and an estimated non- Federal cost of $161 million. The Poplar Island environmental restoration project has been a top priority of mine, of the Maryland Port Administration and of the shipping and environmental communities for many years, and I am delighted that this legislation will enable us to move forward with the expansion of this project.

Second, the bill contains three additional provisions authorizing a total of nearly $100 million which are critical to our continuing efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It reauthorizes and expands a program that we established in section 510 of WRDA 1996 known as the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program, raising the authorized funding from the current level of $10 million to $30 million. It increases the funding for Chesapeake Bay native oyster restoration to $50 million--a $20 million increase over current levels. And it authorizes the Smith Island ecosystem restoration project to reverse the tremendous loss of wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation around Smith Island, MD.

In 1984, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a comprehensive study--the first such study ever undertaken--of the present and future uses and problems of Chesapeake Bay's water and related land resources. Since then the Corps has undertaken or participated in a variety of projects to help restore the Chesapeake Bay's water quality and living resources, including sewage treatment plant upgrades, making beneficial use of dredged materials, removing impediments to fish passage, mitigating the impacts of shoreline erosion, and restoring wetlands, habitat and oyster reefs. But despite these efforts, the Chesapeake Bay's health continues to languish.

To restore the integrity of the ecosystem and to meet the goals established in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, nutrient and sediment loads must be significantly reduced, oyster populations must be increased, SAV and wetlands must be protected and restored, and remaining blockages to fish passage must be removed, among other actions. As the lead Federal agency in water resource management, the Corps has a vital role to play in this endeavor, and the programs authorized in this measure will enable the Corps to continue to participate in this effort. The funding increase provided for the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program will allow the Corps to expand design and construction assistance to State and local authorities for a variety of environmental restoration projects in the bay. The additional funds provided for native oyster restoration will help support the Chesapeake 2000's goal of increasing oyster populations by tenfold by the year 2010. And the new authority to construct the Smith Island environmental restoration projects will help stem the alarming loss of SAV and wetlands along the coastline of Martin National Wildlife Refuge and Smith Island, protecting approximately 720 acres and restoring about 1,400 acres of valuable habitat.

Third, the measure provides the funding necessary to complete the C&O Canal rewatering project in Cumberland, MD. In 1952 a 1.2-mile section of the historic C&O Canal and turning basin at its Cumberland terminus was filled in by the Corps of Engineers during construction of the Cumberland, MD, and Ridgely, WV, flood protection project. The National Park Service and State and local authorities have long sought to rebuild and rewater the C&O Canal in this area to restore the integrity of the historic canal and assist in

revitalizing the area as a major hub for tourism and environmentally sound economic development. The Corps investigated the feasibility of reconstructing and rewatering the turning basin and canal near its terminus and determined that it is feasible to rewater the canal successfully without compromising the flood protection for the city of Cumberland.

Subsequently, Senator Mikulski and I secured a provision in WRDA 1999 authorizing the Corps to construct this project at a then-estimated total project cost of $15 million. Those estimates were based on a 50- percent design document completed in 1998. Since that time, the estimated cost of the project has increased due, in large part, to the finding of archeological objects and petroleum in the canal turning basin and prism as well as design refinements. The provisions included in this bill increase the authorized funding level for the project from $15 million to $25.75 million and will ensure that the full 1.2-mile section of canal and turning basin are completed.

Fourth, the bill contains provisions to facilitate the restoration of the Anacostia River, one of the most degraded rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and in the Nation.

Through a cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local, and private effort, significant progress has been made over the past decade to restore the Anacostia watershed. Today there are more than 60 local, State, and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration efforts, and more than $100 million in Federal, State, and local funds have been invested in this endeavor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has played a key role in improving tidal waterflow through the marsh, reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus, and restoring wetlands, but the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The provisions in this legislation require the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Maryland, the county executives of Montgomery County and Prince George's County, MD, and other stakeholders, to develop and make available to the public a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its tributaries.

I wish to compliment the distinguished chairmen of the committee and the subcommittee, Senators Inhofe and Bond, and the ranking members, Senators Jeffords and Baucus, for including these provisions and for their work on this legislation. This legislation is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. President, I thought the request on this side was going to be----

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

I would ask the chairman of the committee, does he want to do the Kyl amendment first?

Mr. President, I make a point of order that Kyl amendment No. 4643 is a rule XVI violation. It is legislation on an appropriations bill.

And the amendment falls, I take it?

Mr. President, what is now the pending business?

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Santorum amendment No. 4575 is a violation of rule XVI. It is legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I have no problem with the purpose in terms of the program that the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to implement, but I think this is a classic example of why we should not legislate on appropriations bills. This cap was increased last year from 150,000 to 250,000 reverse mortgages for senior citizens. Yet, there have been some reports of some concerns that there is a certain amount of fee gouging taking place with respect to senior citizens. This amendment would remove the cap altogether. It seems to me that there ought to be an effort to look into and address some of these concerns rather than just further increasing the program.

This is an important program for senior citizens, and we are hopeful it is working. We have been testing it out. We had an original cap of 150,000. Subsequently, this was raised to 250,000. The amendment also, of course, increases the loan limits. So there are some very substantive changes being made by this proposal with respect to this program. It seems to me it calls for the invoking of rule XVI and an opportunity to examine the substance of the program in a more careful way. That is the basis of raising the rule XVI point of order. I think this fits classically into the rationale for that ruling being part of the rules of the Senate.

Is there time remaining?

I say briefly, I hope in any effort to expand it we can address the concern that has been expressed about fees, including by HUD itself, because, although this is a very good program and it is very important to seniors, in the course of this program being utilized we don't want to start drifting down the path of predatory lending--I guess I would call it reverse predatory lending. That is why I believe we need to include that kind of analysis in any expansion of the program.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute today to COL Robert J. Davis, Jr., commander of the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Colonel Davis is retiring after 26 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Army, and I take this opportunity to express my appreciation for his many years of dedicated service to our Nation.

Robert Davis graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1980 and was commissioned into the U.S. Army. He has served in numerous staff and command positions here in the United States and abroad including an associate professorship in the Department of Mechanics and Civil and Mechanical Engineering at West Point, commanding the C Company of the 14th Engineer Battalion in Fort Ord, CA, and directing public works for the 6th Area Support Group in Stuttgart, Germany. He also served as assistant to the commanding general of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and as commander of the Detroit District.

Since August, 2003, when Colonel Davis was selected as commander and district engineer for the Baltimore Engineer District, I have had the pleasure of working closely with him on numerous civil works and military construction projects vitally important to the State of Maryland. These included the completion of the first phase of the rewatering of the C&O Canal in Cumberland, MD, the initiation of the Gwynns Falls Restoration Project in Baltimore, the dredging of St. Jerome Creek in Southern Maryland, the advancement of dredged material management plans for the Port of Baltimore and the opening of a new recreational trail at Jennings Randolph Lake. Colonel Davis has continued a long tradition of outstanding leadership of the Baltimore District, and the citizens of Maryland and the other States served by the Baltimore District will benefit from his leadership for years to come.

In recognition of his exceptional service, Colonel Davis has received numerous awards and commendations including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Army Medal of Achievement. But above all, Colonel Davis has exemplified a steadfast commitment to serving his fellow citizens and country with his very best, most dedicated efforts. In this most honorable mission, he has earned the admiration and high regard of everyone with whom he has worked. I extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his hard work and dedication and wish him the very best in the future.

Mr. President, the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2007 has now been under consideration on the Senate floor for more than a week. Much of that time has been devoted to discussion of Iraq, which casts a long shadow over every decision we are called to make. I regret that there has been such great unwillingness, until now, to have this issue freely debated on the floor of the Senate, and I commend the floor managers for allowing us to fulfill our constitutional responsibility. If ever there was a time for a resolute and reasoned assessment of our policy in Iraq, this is it.

In undertaking unilateral military action to remove Saddam, the administration chose to pursue a costly policy that has seriously undermined our ability to focus on and deal effectively with the urgent national-security challenges we face. Turning its back on 50 years of bipartisan consensus on the need to work collectively and cooperatively through multilateral institutions--a consensus that carried us through the darkest years of the Cold War--this administration insisted on a go-it-alone strategy that made only minimal gestures toward diplomacy. Pushing aside the many diplomatic, economic and political resources at his disposal, the President squandered the vast outpouring of support that resulted from the tragic events of 9/11. His policies have divided us not only from the vast population of the Muslim and developing world, whose support is more important now than ever in the fight against terrorism, but also from many of our traditional friends and allies in Europe and Asia.

More than 3 years ago I took the Senate floor and posed this question: ``Are we going to seek to exercise our power in cooperation, in coordination with others, which in the current context means working through the United Nations; or are we going to move down the path of asserting a unilateral preemptive prerogative, in effect, asserting our right to do what we want anywhere, anytime, to anyone?'' I say now that the administration made a grievous mistake in pursuing the second path, and thus today we find ourselves forced to deal with the consequences. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleagues my remarks of October 9, 2002.

Had the United States taken that more prudent course, we would find ourselves in a different, and, I would argue, immeasurably stronger position than we are in today. Before the invasion began, we had investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground in Iraq, where they were tracking down and following up all reports of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. and British aircraft were enforcing two U.N.-backed no-fly zones, one to protect the Kurds in the north, and another to protect Shiites in the south. In effect, we had Saddam Hussein in a corner, and we were keeping him there with the blessing of the international community.

The President chose instead to take a reckless and irresponsible gamble. We can count up the number of deaths, we can count up the number of dollars, we can count up the number of injuries from which people will never recover, but none of this begins to account for the true costs to our Nation. We have lost more than 2,500 courageous and dedicated men and women--a tragedy for them and their families, and also for the nation, because they represented the promise and hope of our future. This is not to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, women and children alike, who were caught in the crossfire. We have diminished our standing in the eyes of the world, and having declined to use the tools of diplomacy at our disposal, we now find their effectiveness diminished. This military action has clouded our vision and distorted our priorities to the point that the entire question of national security must now be debated through the prism of Iraq.

With our diplomatic resources focused overwhelmingly on Iraq, we have undermined our ability to achieve national security objectives we know to be critical. Today the challenge in Afghanistan is growing, not receding. More than in the past, al Qaida is an international phenomenon that adapts to local conditions, making its detection and destruction ever more difficult. The nuclear challenge posed by Iran is gaining momentum at the same time that our presence in Iraq immeasurably complicates the problems of dealing effectively with Iran, and North Korea has raised its own nuclear challenge to a new level.

Our country's standing in the world community has been diminished on numerous fronts by the profoundly misguided invasion of Iraq and our continuing failure to meet the goals we set for ourselves. We have seriously undermined working relations with our traditional partners and allies, which the President's trip to Vienna has yet again put on vivid display. Sixteen of the original 37 members of the coalition which the administration touted have withdrawn their troops, Japan being only the most recent to announce its departure. Of those who remain, only the United Kingdom has more than 5,000 soldiers on the ground.

This is to say nothing of the toll Iraq has taken at home. There are thousands who have been disabled by serious war-related injuries and trauma. Hundreds of thousands of families have been torn apart by lengthy and unplanned Guard and reserve duty, often creating substantial financial hardship. Our National Guard, thus stretched, is less able to render assistance in the situations it was designed to address. We have had to divert hard-pressed resources from urgent domestic priorities, the recovery from Hurricane Katrina among them.

Yet the administration refuses to face these realities. When at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last fall I asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, referring to Iraq, ``Do you think five years from now, some American forces will have come out?'' She said, ``Senator, I don't want to speculate.'' Even when asked, ``What about 10 years from now?'' she refused to rule out the prospect that our troops would still be on the ground in Iraq. Her response revealed the administration's adamant refusal to think through to the consequences of the action, which has characterized our policy in Iraq from the beginning.

It is long past time to face the situation squarely and undertake a fundamental redirection of the policy before more damage is done. The war not only has taken a terrible toll in terms of lives and hopes for the future; it has diverted our attention from the real and urgent threats to our national security and compromised our ability to deal with them. We should not be pursuing an open-ended commitment in Iraq. It was a war that need never have begun. By failing to offer to a viable strategy to bring it to an end, the administration does a grave disservice to our Nation.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and my colleague, the able Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, this is an extremely important issue before us. The last time the minimum wage was raised was in September of 1997. If we fail to increase the minimum wage before the end of the year, we will have gone the longest time without adjusting it since it was first enacted in 1938. That is a dismal performance on the part of the Congress.

Since 1997, inflation has drastically reduced the purchasing power of the minimum wage. It is now the lowest it has been in more than 40 years. To match the last increase, in terms of purchasing power, the minimum wage would have to be increased 25 percent above what it is now. And as we fail to act, the purchasing power of the current minimum wage continues to be eroded by the steady march of inflation-- contributing to two serious problems in our society, rising poverty and increased inequality.

Thirty years ago, a worker paid the minimum wage who worked 40 hours a week for 52 weeks made enough to keep a family of three out of poverty. Now that worker is 35 percent below the poverty level.

People at the bottom of the wage scale have been falling further and further behind the rest of the workforce. In the 1950s and 1960s, the minimum wage averaged about 50 percent of the average wage. Today, at $5.15 an hour, the current minimum wage is only 31 percent of the average hourly wage. If we fail to act, minimum wage earners will continue to fall further behind.

Nearly 15 million Americans would benefit from raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. 6.6 million would benefit directly because they make less than $7.25 an hour. Based on past experience with minimum wage hikes, another 8 million who make a little more than $7.25 an hour should enjoy a wage increase as well.

There are those who say only teenagers benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. However, eighty percent of the workers who would benefit from raising the minimum wage--12 million of those 15 million workers--are adults.

As Congress fails to act, States are raising the minimum wage themselves. My own State did that last January. And various studies indicate that job growth has been faster in the States that have raised the minimum wage than in those that have not raised the minimum wage. Economic studies by leading economists found that increases such as the proposed minimum wage hike would not reduce employment, which is an argument that is made against this amendment.

A hike in the minimum wage, in fact, has been found to reduce turnover of employees which has several advantages. You get a more experienced and productive workforce, lower costs for recruiting new workers, and lower costs for training new workers.

In fact, a letter in support of raising the minimum wage was signed by over 500 economists, including four Nobel laureate winners.

Last week, the House Appropriations Committee accepted an amendment offered in the committee by my able colleague, Congressman Hoyer, to raise the minimum wage to $7.25. It was accepted by the committee on a bipartisan basis. The bill had been scheduled to come to the House floor this week, but it has been pulled from consideration. News reports suggest--I hope wrongly--that the House leadership wants to avoid a debate on the minimum wage until after the November elections.

Mr. President, we should pass the Kennedy amendment to raise the minimum wage. It will lower poverty, reduce inequality, and provide vital income gains to 15 million workers and their families.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I understand the Senate is in morning business?

Mr. President, earlier in the week, on Monday to be exact, Senator Robert C. Byrd, our very distinguished colleague, became the longest serving Senator in the history of the U.S. Senate. It is obviously a moment to celebrate and recognize his accomplishments in the service of the Nation. Our celebration is tempered only by the fact that his beloved wife Erma, with whom he spent nearly 69 years of marriage, passed away recently.

I want to join my colleagues who, in the course of this week, have paid tribute to the senior Senator from West Virginia. Senator Byrd this year completes his eighth Senate term, having first been elected to the Senate in 1958. Prior to that, he served 6 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and, before that, 6 years in the West Virginia legislature.

In his now almost 48 years in the U.S. Senate, he has held an extraordinary range of committee and subcommittee assignments and has served in leadership positions as secretary of the majority conference, majority whip, minority leader, majority leader, and President pro tempore. His vote has been recorded on nearly 99 percent of all Senate rollcalls since 1958. Indeed, he has cast far more votes than any other Senator in our Nation's history.

It is not for his longevity, however, that we honor our colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia. It is, rather, the manner in which he has faithfully carried out his responsibilities as a U.S. Senator and his abiding dedication to the Constitution of the United States and the system of government it created. No Member of the U.S. Congress understands better than Senator Byrd the Constitution's role in framing our lives as Americans. As he has written:

Only the Constitution's genius affords our people the

powers and prerogatives that truly keep us a free nation,

most centrally through maintenance of the checks and balances

and separation of powers.

Over many years, while vigorously and effectively representing the people of West Virginia, Senator Byrd has made the study, exposition, and defense of the Constitution his life's work. In so doing, he has spoken not only for West Virginians but for us all. If, as Senator Byrd has said, the Senate functions as the central pillar of our constitutional system, then I would say that Senator Byrd himself is the central pillar of the Senate. His commitment to the Senate and its history, its custom, and procedures is equaled only by his commitment to the State of West Virginia, our Nation, and our Constitution.

No one is more keenly attuned to the Senate's role in assuring the proper functioning of our constitutional system. He has studied the Senate's origins in Roman and British history. He has, as he puts it, ``ponder[ed] the lives of the framers and founders and set down a four- volume history of the Senate.'' And he has read the journals and other writings of the early Members of this body. He has mastered the Senate rules to a degree that few, if any, others have ever attained. Even in the most contentious debates, Senator Robert C. Byrd remains a steady voice for courtesy and civility. Indeed, his is the voice of courtesy and civility.

Senator Byrd begins his autobiography, ``Child of the Appalachian Coalfields,'' with an observation by William James:

The best use of life is to invest it in something which

will outlast life.

This certainly is what he has done.

It was not foreordained that he would some day be a U.S. Senator from West Virginia. Born in North Carolina, he lost his mother in the great influenza epidemic of 1918, when he was a year old, whereupon he was adopted by an aunt and her husband and moved with them to West Virginia. His adopted father was a coal miner, and he grew up in company towns. He was an excellent student, valedictorian of his high school class, ``a self-styled sort of somebody,'' one high school teacher later said, but his prospects were few. As another teacher observed:

Knowing the background and how hard it would be to move out

from that background, I picture him as being an office man or

a scrip clerk at one of the mines.

In those years of the Great Depression, there was obviously no money for college. Robert Byrd took what jobs he could get: Shop clerk, butcher, a welder in a Baltimore shipyard during World War II. We were honored to have had him in our State.

In 1946, he was elected to the first of three terms in the State legislature. Of the decision to run for office he has said:

I grew up in a state where we didn't have much hope. I

wanted to help my people and give them hope . . .

He did not abandon his hopes of continuing his education. Upon his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1952, he enrolled in law school. When he learned that he would be denied a law degree because he had never received a college degree in the law school in which he had enrolled, he transferred to the Washington College of Law at American University where he went to night classes for 10 years and received his law degree cum laude in 1963--a remarkable achievement. By that time he had been a Senator from West Virginia for 5 years. Robert Byrd is the only person ever to have served in either House of Congress to begin and complete a law degree while serving.

Twenty years later, the College of Law at American University honored him as the First Distinguished Fellow of the honor society established by the late dean of the college, a most fitting tribute. Eleven years later, in 1994, he received his bachelor's degree in political science from Marshall University in recognition of the credits accumulated there and other places over a period of many years.

Of the many awards he has received in the course of his long and distinguished career, Senator Byrd has said that none means more to him than the tribute from the Governor and legislature of his State in naming him ``West Virginian of the 20th Century.''

As his colleague here in the Senate for the past 30 years and as one who has the deepest respect and admiration for him and cherishes his counsel and friendship, I submit that he will be remembered not only for his service to his State but for the courage and dedication and tenacity he has shown and continues to show every day in the service of our Nation. It is a privilege to be his colleague here in the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the National Housing Conference, NHC, an organization of over 900 members dedicated to forwarding the cause of affordable housing and community development. For the past 75 years, the National Housing Conference has been an important contributor to the national debate on housing policy. Over the years, NHC has worked to achieve the goal set forth in the landmark Housing Act of 1949: ``a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family.''

Organized in New York City in 1931 by the efforts of reformer and social worker Mary Simkhovitch, NHC has the distinction of being the first nonpartisan, independent coalition of national housing leaders from both public and private sectors. This pioneering advocacy group included bankers, builders, civic leaders, realtors, organized labor, architects, and residents. Early on, NHC was instrumental in the efforts to raise public awareness in New York City about the plight of hundreds of thousands of its people and the consequences slums had on the general welfare.

In 1945, NHC moved its headquarters to Washington, DC, and took on a tremendous challenge: get rid of the slums, and eliminate substandard housing. Through the 1940s NHC forged partnerships and mobilized grassroots forces around the country in an effort to pass Federal legislation to meet this challenge. Finally, NHC's efforts were rewarded with the passage of the landmark Housing Act of 1949, the most sweeping, ambitious housing legislation the Nation had ever had. The act called for ``a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family.''

In the 1960s, NHC was again instrumental in the passage of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, which resulted in the creation of a Cabinet-level department devoted to housing.

Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s NHC was a constant presence in the national debate on housing policy, and continued to advocate on behalf of better housing opportunities for all Americans.

NHC continues to be a force in shaping this Nation's housing policy. Today, as NHC celebrates this milestone, it has rededicated itself to a central mission: fulfilling the dream of the 1949 Housing Act--``a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family.'' I commend the National Housing Conference for its past efforts and honor the organization on this very special anniversary.

Mr. President, we have before us more of the same--tax reconciliation legislation that further undermines our underlying fiscal health while providing extraordinary, generous benefits for the very wealthy but little relief for hard-working, hard-pressed, middle- class Americans. As an editorial in today's New York Times says pointedly, ``There's nothing in it for most Americans, and yet all Americans will pay its cost. . . .''

The Republican conferees who produced this conference report made a series of critical choices. Rather than providing tax relief for millions of middle-class Americans, they have given most of the $70 billion to the wealthy few.

Rather than extending critical tax provisions that expired at the end of last year--like the research and development tax credit, the college tuition deduction, and the credit for teachers who use their own money for classroom expenses--they have extended tax cuts for the wealthy, which do not expire until 2009. Rather than finding ways to help Americans address the tremendous prices at the gas pumps, they have allowed the big oil companies to continue enjoying their large tax breaks and Government giveaways. Rather than charting a course to fiscal responsibility a change in direction long overdue they have presented us with a bill whose $70 billion in tax cuts will only add to the already-massive Federal deficit, and whose budgetary gimmicks will cost the country billions of additional dollars in the years to come. Among the most egregious of the gimmicks is the provision allowing wealthy taxpayers to contribute more to their Roth retirement accounts. While it provides revenue at this time to offset the costs of the bill's other tax cuts for the wealthy in the near term, it will cost billions and billions of dollars in lost revenue in the future, and this cost will be borne by future generations of working Americans.

An editorial in this morning's Washington Post sums up this legislation succinctly: ``Budgetary dishonesty, distributional unfairness, fiscal irresponsibility,'' adding ``by now the words are so familiar, it can be hard to appreciate how damaging this fiscal course will be.''

Again and again, the administration points to figures on the growth in the economy that mask the clear, deeply disturbing underlying trends that show the income gap widening. Just the title of an article that appeared in the March 27th Wall Street Journal tells the story: ``Wages Fail to Keep Pace With Productivity Increases, Aggravating Income Inequality.''

Indeed, while the wealthy are getting richer, the incomes of the middle class and the poor have been steadily declining. There is an abundance of evidence on this point. As a New York Times editorial, entitled ``Barely Staying Afloat,'' noted yesterday, more than 37 million Americans now live below the poverty line, and an additional 54 million live between the poverty line and double the poverty line the so-called ``near poor.'' The Washington Post, in another editorial this past Sunday, reported that real income of families in the middle 20 percent has grown only 12 percent since 1980, while the incomes of those in the top 10th have grown an astonishing 67 percent. Those who are fortunate enough to find themselves in the top 1 percent have seen their incomes more than double.

The bill before us reinforces this trend, delivering handsome benefits to the very wealthy, while providing precious little for middle- and lower-class Americans. According to a report recently released by the joint Brookings-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, approximately 87 percent of this bill's benefits will go to the 14 percent of households with incomes above $100,000, while 55 percent of the benefits will go to the 3 percent of those with incomes over $200,000. While millionaires represent only two-tenths of 1 percent of our population, they will receive 22 percent of this bill's largesse. In terms of real dollars, families in the middle 20 percent of income will receive an average of only $20 in benefits from this bill. In stark contrast, those in the top 1 percent will receive an average of $13,800. Even more troubling, those with an income of over $1 million will benefit by an average of $42,000. This means that millionaires will receive on average 2,100 times as much from this bill as those in the middle 20 percent of society.

Not only are these tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest among us, they further skew the fiscal dilemma that the Nation now confronts. When President Bush took office in 2001, the Federal budget was in surplus for the third consecutive year. In 1998, the Federal Government had reported its first surplus in the budget since the 1960s, and surpluses of $5.6 trillion were projected over a period of 10 years. This very strong fiscal situation put the Nation in a position to pay down the large national debt that had been accumulated as we moved through the 1980s and into the 1990s. Instead President Bush squandered the projected surpluses by instituting irresponsible and reckless tax cuts. When the history of this period is written, the fiscal policy of this administration will be regarded as a gross irresponsibility.

When the President submitted his first budget proposal, he asserted: ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.'' The following year, 2002, with the budget already in deficit, the President called for yet another tax cut, promising that ``our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' In fact, the President's budget in that year confidently asserted that the deficits would be so short term that by this year 2006 the budget would be back in surplus.

In fact, exactly the opposite has happened. Consistent with the irresponsible fiscal policy that this President has pursued, we have run deficits each and every year since 2001. We went from a surplus of $128 billion in 2001 to a deficit $158 billion in 2002 a swing of $286 billion. The deficit rose to $378 billion in 2003, rose again in 2004 to $413 billion, fell slightly in 2005 to $319 billion, and is now projected to go back up again in 2006 to $371 billion. Far from being small and short term, these deficits are at record levels. Every year, the goal of returning to fiscal balance recedes, as administration policies drive us deeper into debt.

Much of this debt is held by foreign lenders, and that amount is growing all the time. At the end of fiscal year 2001, 31 percent of the outstanding Federal Government debt was held by foreign lenders. Over the succeeding 4 years, borrowing from abroad accounted for more than 80 percent of the increase in our Government debt. So as we have seen the debt rise, the proportion of that debt held by foreign lenders has risen at a much more rapid rate. As our borrowing abroad increases, a shift has also occurred from private to Government lenders.

If foreign lenders continue to buy 80 percent of new Federal debt, the Federal Government will owe more than half of the debt to foreign lenders by 2011. In other words, as Blanche DuBois says in Tennessee Williams' play ``A Streetcar Named Desire,'' we will be dependent on ``the kindness of strangers.

I opposed the President's tax plan as unfair and irresponsible at the time the budget was in surplus, and I oppose the legislation before us today. It is unfair and it is irresponsible, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing legislation to improve security at our Nation's transit systems, rail lines, and ports. The transit title in this legislation was reported unanimously by the Banking Committee in November of last year, and the rail and port titles were reported on the same day by the Commerce Committee. Combining these titles into one piece of legislation makes extraordinary sense when one considers the urgent need to improve security in all areas of our Nation's multimodal transportation network.

As ranking member of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over public transportation, I will focus my remarks on the transit portion of this legislation, though the need for improved security is equally great at our rail network and ports. Let me begin by noting that during the last Congress, the Senate unanimously passed the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which is identical to the transit title in the legislation we are introducing today. Unfortunately, that legislation was never enacted into law, and the threat to transit continues. Just last week the Department of Homeland Security issued a new warning to transit systems to remain alert against possible terrorist attacks. According to the Associated Press, the warning said that four people had been arrested over the last several months in separate incidents involving videotaping of European subway stations and trains or similar activity, which provides ``indications of continued terrorist interest in mass transit systems as targets.''

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 rail

trains in Madrid. In fact, in 2002, the GAG reported that one-third of all terrorist attacks worldwide are against transit systems. Despite this significant threat, security funding has been grossly inadequate, and, as a result, our Nation's transit systems have been unable to implement necessary security improvements, including those that have been identified by the Department of Homeland Security. In an editorial last July, just after the London attacks, 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.

The editorial goes on to state:

How would those in charge of the nation's public transit

systems spend the extra money? Chiefly for necessities like

security cameras, radios, training an extra security

personnel. Those aren't extravagant requests.

Let me give one example of a critical need right here with respect to Washington's Metro. Their greatest security need is a backup control operations 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. This legislation would authorize 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 infrastructure. We can wait no longer to make these security investments.

I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, for his excellent leadership on transit security and Senator Reed for his strong and continued commitment on this issue. I also commend the leadership of the Commerce Committee for their foresight in moving the port and rail titles of this legislation. I thank all of our colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of this legislation, and I urge the full Senate to support it.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, Biden and Carper to designate the route of Captain John Smith's exploration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as a National Historic Trail. The proposed Trail is of great historical importance to all Americans in that it represents the beginning of our Nation's story.

Next year our Nation will commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown and the beginning of John Smith's momentous explorations of the Chesapeake Bay. In April 1607, three ships, the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery, arrived at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay after a four-month voyage from England carrying the colonists who would establish the first permanent English settlement in North America and plant the seeds of our nation and our democracy. 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 sparked by reports of Smith's voyages around the Chesapeake Bay.

John Smith's explorations in the small, 30 foot shallop totaled some three thousand miles, reaching from present-day Jamestown, Virginia, to Smiths Falls on the Pennsylvania border with Maryland and from Broad Creek, in Delaware to the Potomac River and Washington, DC. His journeys brought the English into contact with many Native American tribes for the first time, and his observations of the region's people and its natural wonders are still relied upon by anthropologists, historians, and ecologists to this day.

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 proposed 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 authorizing the National Park Service to study the feasibility of so designating this trail, on March 21, 2006 the National Park System Advisory Board concluded that the proposed trail is ``nationally significant'' as a milestone for the English exploration of North America, contact between the English and the Native American tribes of the region, and in commerce and trade in North America. This finding is one of the principal criteria for qualifying as a National Historic Trail. Well documented by the remarkably accurate maps and charts that Smith made of his voyages, the trail also offers tremendous opportunities for public recreation and historic interpretation and appreciation. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail, this new historic water 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. It would also help highlight the Chesapeake Bay's remarkable maritime history, the diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary.

As Jamestown's 400th anniversary quickly approaches, designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail will bring history to life. It would serve to educate visitors about the new colony at Jamestown, John Smith's journeys, the history of 17th century Chesapeake region, and the vital importance of the Native Americans that inhabited the Bay area. It would provide new opportunities for recreation and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 millions Americans living in the Chesapeake Bay's watershed, but for visitors to this area throughout the country and abroad.

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 and 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.

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.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, Biden and Carper to designate the route of Captain John Smith's exploration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as a National Historic Trail. The proposed Trail is of great historical importance to all Americans in that it represents the beginning of our Nation's story.

Next year our Nation will commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown and the beginning of John Smith's momentous explorations of the Chesapeake Bay. In April 1607, three ships, the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery, arrived at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay after a four-month voyage from England carrying the colonists who would establish the first permanent English settlement in North America and plant the seeds of our nation and our democracy. 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 sparked by reports of Smith's voyages around the Chesapeake Bay.

John Smith's explorations in the small, 30 foot shallop totaled some three thousand miles, reaching from present-day Jamestown, Virginia, to Smiths Falls on the Pennsylvania border with Maryland and from Broad Creek, in Delaware to the Potomac River and Washington, DC. His journeys brought the English into contact with many Native American tribes for the first time, and his observations of the region's people and its natural wonders are still relied upon by anthropologists, historians, and ecologists to this day.

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 proposed 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 authorizing the National Park Service to study the feasibility of so designating this trail, on March 21, 2006 the National Park System Advisory Board concluded that the proposed trail is ``nationally significant'' as a milestone for the English exploration of North America, contact between the English and the Native American tribes of the region, and in commerce and trade in North America. This finding is one of the principal criteria for qualifying as a National Historic Trail. Well documented by the remarkably accurate maps and charts that Smith made of his voyages, the trail also offers tremendous opportunities for public recreation and historic interpretation and appreciation. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail, this new historic water 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. It would also help highlight the Chesapeake Bay's remarkable maritime history, the diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary.

As Jamestown's 400th anniversary quickly approaches, designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail will bring history to life. It would serve to educate visitors about the new colony at Jamestown, John Smith's journeys, the history of 17th century Chesapeake region, and the vital importance of the Native Americans that inhabited the Bay area. It would provide new opportunities for recreation and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 millions Americans living in the Chesapeake Bay's watershed, but for visitors to this area throughout the country and abroad.

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 and 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.

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.

Mr. President, it is with a profound sense of Maryland pride and pleasure that I rise in joining my Maryland colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski, in introducing a resolution congratulating the University of Maryland Terrapins for winning the 2006 NCAA Women's National Basketball Championship. Joining us in this effort is the Maryland House delegation, spearheaded by University of Maryland alum, Congressman Steny Hoyer.

As our resolution highlights, this has been a terrific run for the women's basketball team. The team notched 33 wins, the most for any Division I men's or women's basketball team this season. Maryland was also the only team in the Nation to score more than 3,000 points. With this championship, the team became only the fourth school to secure championships in both men's and women's basketball, joining Stanford University, the University of Connecticut and the University of North Carolina.

Maryland, after its stellar regular season, was surprisingly selected as a No. 2 seed. The young team, which started two freshmen, two sophomores and one junior, seemed to thrive on the NCAA selection committee's underestimation. They played in, and won, six overtime games this season, including the positively thrilling come-from-behind- victory in the championship game. Down by thirteen points with fifteen minutes left in regulation, the Terps kept chipping away at the lead, capping it off with a terrific three point shot by freshman guard, Kristi Toliver, to tie the game at 70 with 6.1 seconds left in regulation.

In overtime the Lady Terps showed why they consider the extra period to be ``their time.'' Smothering defense and poise in shooting free throws secured the brilliant win down the final stretch.

The championship team consisted of senior guard/forward Charmaine Carr, freshman guard/forward Marissa Coleman, junior guard Shay Doron, junior guard Kalika France, sophomore forward/center Laura Harper, sophomore center/forward Crystal Langhorne, sophomore guard Christie Marrone, sophomore guard Ashleigh Newman, junior center Aurelie Noirez, sophomore forward/center Jade Perry, senior forward/center Angel Ross, freshman guard Kristi Toliver, and sophomore guard Sa'de Wiley- Gatewood. Their victory could not have been secured without the talented coaches and staff led by head coach Brenda Frese, assisted by coaches Jeff Walz, Erica Floyd, and Joanna Bernabei. Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the director of basketball operations, Mark Pearson and athletic director Debbie Yow.

On behalf of the State of Maryland, the Maryland congressional delegation and the University of Maryland, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the outstanding efforts of this amazing group of basketball players, coaches and staff.

Cheer the turtle!

Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and I commend her once again for undertaking this initiative. In fact, as indicated in the colloquy with Senator Warner, this amendment is met with general approbation, and I believe it is a tribute to my colleague that she worked out a very skillful legislative solution to a difficult problem.

This is a very measured and sensible solution to a real problem confronting small businesses struggling to find enough employees to operate during seasonal spikes in their workload. Many small businesses in Maryland and, indeed, around the country have seasonal increases in work. They often need a large number of workers for a portion of the year but do not retain these workers throughout the year. Therefore, temporary workers become essential to the vitality of these businesses.

In Maryland, the seasonal issue affects numerous industries, including, first and foremost, the seafood industry but also the hospitality, pool and construction industries. Seafood processors, for example, are busy in the summer and early fall but have little or no work in the winter. All of these businesses start out by trying to hire college students and local residents as extra workers to cover this need, but they often find themselves shortstaffed. That has been the standard experience, and this program is designed to address that--the temporary employees come from abroad to work for a few months and then return home.

As an essential part of this program, the H-2B program, this amendment my colleague offers today would simply extend for 3 years one of the very successful modifications to the H-2B program that was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 94 to 6 a year ago this month. Those modifications left the H-2B framework intact. They provided a fair and equitable means of distributing a scarce number of visas.

It is important--and I wish to underscore this to my colleagues--to note that employers must demonstrate that they have tried and failed to find available, qualified U.S. citizens to fill seasonal jobs before they can file an H-2B application.

The amendment approved last year, which is carried forward by this extension, had three important aspects:

First, it ensured that summer employers were not disadvantaged by allowing no more than 33,000--or no more than half--of the 66,000 H- 2B--visas to be allocated in the first half of the year.

Second, temporary workers who have lawfully participated in the H-2B program in the previous 3 years were exempted from the annual numerical cap.

Third, the modification required the employer to pay a fraud prevention and detection fee and increased sanctions for fraud.

Senator Mikulski is seeking to carry these provisions forward. These visas are really for people who respect our laws and who work hard to provide services that benefit our economy and then return home to their families at the end of the season. All of that is an essential part of the program.

This extension is a necessary adjustment for small and seasonal businesses that rely on temporary workers. We must recognize that the success of one small business impacts another. It has a ripple effect through the economy and helps to maintain the vitality not only of our State's economy but of the Nation's economy.

Mr. President, as we debate the larger issues involved in immigration reform, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I again commend my colleague, Senator Mikulski, for coming forward with this amendment to address an important issue on which the Senate has already indicated its approval in past considerations. This is a very important amendment for our small businesses that require temporary seasonal workers. This is a very skillful legislative solution to a problem. I commend my colleague for bringing it forth, and I urge its adoption.

I yield the floor.