Floor Statements

Mr. President, March 25 has very special meaning in Greek history. On this date 183 years ago, a small but resolute band of Greek patriots began the struggle to end the foreign domination that for nearly four centuries had oppressed and impoverished Greek lands. For 8 difficult years, resolute and courageous Greek patriots fought against tremendous odds to secure the liberty of their homeland. On this same date 30 years ago the military junta, which had seized power in 1967 and for 7 long years suppressed democratic institutions and civil rights, was brought down, and democracy was restored to the land of its invention. These two events, distant in time and nature as they are from one another, both mark milestones on the road to the vigorous and prosperous democracy that is Greece today.

Nearly 200 years ago, the United States and Greece were two young republics for whom the future was still uncertain. Inspired by democratic ideas in a world that was largely uncomprehending and hostile, both took on the formidable challenge of building viable democratic institutions. That shared commitment has endured. The United States and Greece have stood together in every major struggle for freedom and democracy: through two devastating World Wars, and through the long decades of the Cold War.

The Hellenic Republic was established in 1974. Since that time, Greece has built itself into a strong democracy, a vibrant economy, a regional leader and an ever more solid partner of the United States. Greece has reclaimed its leading role in the region, joining the European Community in 1981. In April 2003, the European Union, under the Greek presidency, signed the Accession Treaty to accept 10 new members in the ancient agora marketplace of Athens, that city serving once again as a cradle for democratic expansion.

Greece's democracy has flourished and prospered over the past 30 years. Recent elections have again demonstrated the stability and openness of the nation's political institutions. With the transfer of power from one party to another, a new generation of Greek leaders is emerging, a generation that promises to build on the strength of the existing relationship with the United States to develop new avenues of cooperation.

Today Greece is preparing for the 2004 Olympics. It is a matter of profound satisfaction for those of us of Greek ancestry that the Games this year are returning to their birthplace, and that Greece will play host to more than two million athletes and visitors from every corner of the world. In connection with the Olympic Games, Greece has undertaken structural improvements that are transforming Athens into a thoroughly cosmopolitan and modern city, and building facilities and infrastructure throughout the country. The investment Greece has made in connection with the Olympics holds out the prospect of a new era, for the people of Greece and visitors to Greece alike. The Games offer a splendid opportunity to present Greek achievements to the international community not only in sports but also in cultural, economic and political terms.

The founders of the American republic were ardent students of the classics, and they looked to the wisdom and experience of ancient Greece as they shaped our nascent political order. In turn, Greek patriots struggling to win independence in 1821 turned to the principles of the new American democracy as they sought to build their own new order. In today's turbulent world, the strong and enduring ties between the two countries are momentous achievements. They give us cause for reflection and celebration on this independence day.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to extend my congratulations to the American Lung Association as it celebrates its 100th anniversary.

One of our Nation's foremost health advocacy groups, the American Lung Association was established in 1904 as the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis, a cause to which it remains very much devoted. From its early years during which it focused on promoting basic sanitation measures, the ALA has grown into a leader in the fields of health education and biomedical research, contributing over $11 million in 2003 alone to the study of lung disease.

The American Lung Association has long been at the forefront of efforts to warn the American public of the dangers of smoking. In fact, the ALA predated the Surgeon General by 4 years in establishing a link between tobacco use and chronic lung disease, issuing a public health statement on the risks of tobacco use as early as 1960. Subsequent public information campaigns, especially those targeting America's youth, have helped cut smoking rates drastically over the past two decades.

In the hope of addressing a root cause of lung disease, the American Lung Association has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of the air we breathe. This organization played a crucial role in the development and implementation of the 1970 Clean Air Act, and since then has provided a strong voice for improving emissions standards and reducing children's exposure to poor air quality in schools.

Over the years, the American Lung Association has risen time after time to the task of combating new health challenges. Recognizing the growing problem of asthma, the ALA has initiated a number of programs to help local officials, parents, and their children combat and manage this disease. And in 1996, the ALA established their Asthma Clinical Research Center network, a program with an annual budget of $3.5 million, consisting of 19 university and hospital centers and a coordinating center at the Johns Hopkins University.

I commend the ALA for its outstanding achievements over the past century, and I offer my best wishes for a successful future.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Dr. Norman M. Rich, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of Surgery, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences--USUHS. This week, on March 26, 2004, Dr. Rich will mark the end of his 44-year career in Federal service.

Dr. Rich's Federal career began in the U.S. Army where he served for 20 years as a career officer and physician from 1960 through 1980. As a military surgeon with academic interests in the management of injured patients and vascular surgery, he earned international recognition; his military awards include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Service Award and Vietnam Medals.

Dr. Rich was appointed as the Founding Chairman of the USUHS School of Medicine's Department of Surgery in August of 1977 and held that position until October of 2002. For the past 16 months, he has continued to serve as an advisor and mentor to the Acting Department Chairman.

As Founding Chairman, Dr. Rich was faced with the difficult task of establishing a Department of Surgery at a university where the campus had not yet been constructed. From the outset, Dr. Rich and his considerable reputation gave credibility to the newly established Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and enabled the recruitment of a competent faculty for its new Department of Surgery. He utilized his collaborative relationships, both nationally and internationally, to strengthen his department's curricula and lectures and thereby provided a military and academically unique environment for the over 3,400 USUHS medical school graduates and thousands more future uniformed medical students.

Dr. Rich can take pride in having developed an academically sound curriculum, recruiting competent faculty with military unique expertise, meeting the initial and on-going accreditation requirements for the School of Medicine, and creating a sound national and global reputation for the university. His efforts have aided the School of Medicine in attaining full accreditation and he has helped shape USUHS graduates into what the Secretary of Defense has dubbed ``the backbone of the Military Health System.'' Indeed, his efforts are reflected in the continued success of USUHS and its graduates and in the continued health of the millions of uniformed personnel and their families who have benefited from his extraordinary expertise.

During the course of his career, Dr. Rich has published over 300 manuscripts and authored or co-authored five books. Among these is the internationally recognized ``Vascular Trauma.'' He has served on 10 editorial boards, including the major peer-reviewed journals focusing upon his specialty. His recent awards include: the 2003 National Safety Council Surgeons' Award for Distinguished Service in Safety presented by the American College of Surgeons, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and the National Safety Council; recognition as a Citizen & Apothecary of London in 2001; and, the J.E. Wallace Sterling Lifetime Alumni Achievement Award from the Stanford Medical Alumni Association.

Our Nation can be proud of Dr. Rich's long and distinguished career of service and I am pleased to join with his family, friends and colleagues in expressing appreciation for the significant contributions he has made to the health of the uniformed services and that of all citizens. I certainly wish him continued success and happiness in the years to come.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The quote stating that they expected 2.6 million more jobs, was that by the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers?

Is that the same administration official, high economic official, who told us in the annual report, the one President Bush signed off on, that outsourcing jobs was a good thing for America?

Yes.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

I say to the very able Senator from California, who earlier showed a chart about how the rate of people participating in the workforce has dropped, what has happened is you have 4.4 million workers today who are working part time for economic reasons. In other words, they want to work full time but they are only working part time.

When you compute the unemployment rate, they are counted as employed, not as unemployed, but really they are only partially employed.

Then you have another 4.6 million people who are discouraged and not currently looking for work who want to work. So they have been knocked out of the labor force as well.

Actually, there are 13.3 million Americans unemployed, and if you use the broadest measure that the BLS prepares, they report an unemployment rate of 10.3 percent. That is factoring in everybody. That is your broadest measure and that is not usually the figure that is focused on. Ordinarily, when the unemployment rate figure comes down, those other figures shrink as well. But it is not all moving in the right direction.

One of the reasons the unemployment rate figure has dropped just a little bit is because people are dropping out of the workforce and they are not looking for a job or they are being shifted from full-time to part-time work. I think that is one of the reasons why, as the able Senator from North Dakota points out, as he moves around his State, he is encountering more and more people who are concerned about the unemployment problem.

What the administration says is this particular rate is the unemployment rate, but that only tells part of the story. That is only part of the story. You have to, in effect, complete the story by looking at those who are working part time but want a full-time job. Of course, if they have been cut from full time to part time, that makes it more difficult to support their family.

Then there are the people who want a job but they are so discouraged and pessimistic that they have dropped out of the effort to find a job. They don't get counted in that unemployment rate.

Will the Senator yield on that point? The President was in Ohio a day or two ago. Of course, Ohio has been badly hit. They have lost manufacturing jobs and they are being hard hit by, in effect, the flow of jobs overseas.

This morning's paper says we ran a record trade deficit last month of $43 billion. That monthly rate translates into well over a $500 billion annual trade deficit--a $\1/2\ trillion trade deficit. Of course, people say we are exporting goods and that is true. But we are importing far more than we are exporting, so much so, that we have set a record monthly trade deficit figure. That only again reflects the flow of jobs out of this country, overseas, exactly the point the Senator is making. In particular, it is the flow of some very good- paying jobs.

The manufacturing sector has been very hard hit. The Administration set up this post of an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing. They waited 6 months, they didn't nominate anyone, and now it looks as if the person they are nominating they are not going to go through with because it turns out he was establishing a factory over in China and cutting back on jobs in this country. Can you imagine that?

I thank the Senator from California for her amendment. She is right on target. This is an extremely important amendment. The package she has put together is a very sensible package to try to address this problem.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield?

I was going to try to get a time limitation because the Senator seemed anxious to do that. I am happy to try to cooperate in that effort. Would 30 minutes equally divided be acceptable, 15 minutes on a side?

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

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

Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment today to fully fund the Assistance to Firefighters grant program, and to fully fund the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Act, which, of course, provides for additional staffing.

As a Co-Chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am pleased to offer this amendment. I certainly underscore and recognize the significant role which my colleague, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, has played on both the firefighter grant program and the SAFER Act.

In his budget for 2005, the President requested only $500 million for the FIRE grant program. This is a cut of close to $250 million, a third of the

funding for this program from the levels established by the Congress over the past two fiscal years. The fully authorized amount for the current fiscal year is $900 million, and this amendment would seek to take the program to that level.

The FIRE grant program is a competitive grant process that funds firefighting equipment, firefighting vehicles, fire prevention, and safety programs. Unlike many other programs directed toward first responders, these funds go directly to local communities and fire departments and do not pass through the States.

The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act, the SAFER Act, would provide 4-year grants to career and volunteer fire departments for firefighter hiring. The Congress authorized this program in the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act at a level of $1.03 billion, and this amendment seeks to fund that program at the authorized level.

Regrettably, the budget the President sent to the Congress, despite the fact he signed the legislation contending the authorization of the SAFER Act, contained no money; indeed, no mention of it, as I indicated before, while the budget he sent to the Congress with respect to the firefighter grant program reduces that program from the previously appropriated amounts in two successive fiscal years of approximately $750 million to $500 million.

The need for both of these programs is very strong; indeed, I would say overwhelming. In December of 2002, FEMA and the National Fire Protection Association jointly released the congressionally authorized Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service. The results of this report were startling. Among its findings, the report noted that an estimated 57,000 firefighters lacked protective clothing; half of all fire engines are at least 15 years old; and approximately one-third of firefighters are not equipped with essential self-contained breathing apparatus, one of the most important and basic safety devices for any firefighter.

The need for the SAFER program is equally evident. OSHA has set a standard that dictates that four firefighters are needed to respond to any structural fire, two inside the structure and two outside. The FEMA-National Fire Protection Association Needs Assessment estimates that, on average, close to half of all fire departments in communities of less than 1 million people are forced to respond to emergencies with fewer than the four firefighters mandated by these standards.

The SAFER Act would go a long way in ameliorating this severe staffing shortage and would provide funding for 75,000 new firefighters over the next 7 years.

This amendment, which provides the full funding for both the Assistance to Firefighters grant program and the SAFER Act, will go a long way in preparing our Nation's firefighters for the hazards that face them.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, it is all well and good to run ads on the television that show our firefighters meeting their duty, carrying out their heroic responsibilities. But if we really want to honor our firefighters we need to fund these programs, both to give them the staffing and to provide them the equipment they so desperately need.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, the budget submitted by the President reduces funding for grants to local police, fire and emergency medical agencies from $4.2 billion in the current fiscal year to $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2005, a very substantial cut.

This cut comes despite a June 2003 report entitled ``Emergency Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' issued by a commission headed by our former colleague, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. The title of that report, again, is ``Emergency Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.''

The President's budget for the firefighter grant program, which provides this badly needed equipment, asks for $500 million. We appropriated $750 million in this year's budget and in the previous year's budget. Yet the President is cutting that figure by one-third. The President's budget provides no funding for the SAFER Act, which this Congress passed last fall, and which provides State, local, and regional agencies with funds to hire firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, rescue workers, ambulance personnel, and hazardous material workers for local fire departments.

These fire departments desperately need these funds. The question is then, as the Senator pointed out, how will they be paid for? Well, the tax cuts that have been received by the top 1 percent are $45 billion annually. A small percentage of that in the single numbers shifted from that purpose to this purpose would enable us to fund these firefighter programs at the fully authorized level.

These are questions of choice, and the choice very directly put by this amendment is whether a portion of these outsized tax reductions for the top 1 percent of the population ought not to be shifted to enable our first responders to get the equipment and staffing, and get the training which they need in order to handle the situations that face them. It is not a sufficient tribute to firefighters, in my judgment, to show them on TV ads carrying out their heroic responsibilities and then to fail to provide them with the resources they so clearly need in order to be able to do the job.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I again underscore the tremendous need for these resources in order for our firefighters to be able to carry out their responsibilities. In June of last year, not even a year ago, the Rudman Commission, headed by our former colleague Warren Rudman, issued a report entitled ``Emergency Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' that found budget shortfalls in the tens of billions of dollars. We need to address this issue.

The history of the administration on this matter is regrettably a sorry tale. When we created the Fire Grant Program in 2000, the Bush Administration, when it came in, moved to eliminate the program in its preliminary budgetary vision for fiscal 2002. We had to fight the administration to put the program back in its budget request for that year. In the end, it proposed flat funding the program.

After the attacks of 9/11--and as I noted earlier, we are now seeing television spots showing our firefighters carrying out their heroic responsibilities--Congress appropriated an additional $210 million in emergency spending for the program, recognizing its significance. The administration refused to spend the money initially, and eventually and reluctantly did so after an outcry from the Congress.

In the fiscal year 2003 budget they proposed rolling this Fire Grant Program into the general first responder account. There was great concern in the Congress about dismantling the specific program. We appropriated almost $750 million to the program in its own account.

Last year the President sought to cut it by a third. Last year the Congress--and I give credit to my colleagues for this--restored the funding to close to $750 million.

This year the budget submitted to us again cuts it to $500 million and there is no money for the SAFER Program, even though it had been authorized back in November.

We need these resources. The Rudman Commission has told us in their report, emergency responders are drastically underfunded and dangerously unprepared. We need to change that equation and we can begin the process of doing so by providing the resources to fund these two programs at their authorized level, paying the firefighters the tribute they deserve by giving them the protective tools and the staffing with which to do their job.

Mr. President, I want to point out that the examples the chairman of the committee used for the supposed waste of money, other than one, did not involve firefighters. You can drag all these cats and dogs in from anywhere you want. The only firefighter example that was used was a purchase of a firefighting boat. On the face of it, that may well have been a good expenditure.

In any event, these are competitive grants and the judgment on who gets the grants and for what purpose is made by the administration. To the extent you can site something, the ultimate responsibility for it comes back on the administration.

Furthermore--will the Senator give me 2 minutes?

Furthermore, the Senator says if we are going to get this money, $2.8 billion, you would have to--then he mentions all kinds of possibilities on the tax side. Obviously, we can't direct specific instructions to the tax committee, but we can point out what the opportunities are. The top 1 percent is getting that billion-dollar tax credit. The cost of the Bush tax cut for those making over $337,000 in 2005--the top 1 percent, over a $337,000 income--$45 billion.

We are suggesting very simply that a small portion of that be shifted in order to help address the challenges that confront our firefighters.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment would fully fund the assistance to firefighter programs, the firefighter grant, and the SAFER program up to the authorized amount. I urge my colleagues stand with our firefighters.

Warren Rudman, in a report, said, ``emergency responders drastically underfunded, dangerously unprepared.'' Don't let that situation continue.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, this is an amendment Senator Crapo and Senator Jeffords and I and others have joined in cosponsoring, Senator Collins, Senator Harry Reid, Senators Kerry, Mikulski, and Clinton. This is to boost the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency for the clean water and safe drinking water State revolving funds. It would be offset by account 920.

As I understand it, it is acceptable to the managers of the bill. We hope it will be adopted.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Crapo and Jeffords in, once again, offering this amendment to boost Federal funding for the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving funds, SRF, from the level recommended in the budget resolution, $2.191 billion to $5.2 billion--$3.2 billion for the clean water SRF and $2 billion for the safe drinking water SRF. The amendment is similar to the amendment which we offered to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution and which was agreed to by voice vote, but regrettably not approved by the House-Senate conference committee.

I spoke last year about the compelling need for increasing Federal support for our Nation's water infrastructure, and I just want to underscore some of the key arguments today.

The President's fiscal year 2005 budget and this resolution once again severely shortchange, in my judgment, the funds needed by State and local governments to upgrade their aging wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. The President's budget provides only $1.7 billion for both State revolving funds, split equally. This budget resolution recommends $2.191 billion for both funds--which represents the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of funding, but that is still far short of what is needed.

Despite important progress over the last three decades, EPA reports that more than 40 percent of our Nation's lakes, rivers, and streams are still too impaired for fishing or swimming. Discharges from aging and failing sewerage systems, urban storm water and other sources, continue to pose serious threats to our Nation's waters, endangering not only public health, but fishing and recreation industries. Population growth and development are placing additional stress on the Nation's water infrastructure and its ability to sustain hard-won water quality gains.

Across the Nation, our wastewater and drinking water systems are aging. In some cases, systems currently in use were built more than a century ago and have outlived their useful life. For many communities, current treatment is not sufficient to meet water quality goals.

In April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network, WIN, a broad coalition of local elected officials, drinking water and wastewater service providers, State environmental and health administrators, engineers and environmentalists released a report, ``Clean & Safe Water for the 21st Century.'' The report documented a $23 billion a year shortfall in funding needed to meet national environmental and public health priorities in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act and to replace aging and failing infrastructure.

In May 2002, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that estimated the spending gap for clean water needs between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years and the spending gap for drinking water needs at between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years.

In September 2002, the EPA released a ``Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis'' which found that there will be a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional investments are not made. This figure does not even account for investments necessary to meet water quality goals in nutrient impaired waters, such as the Chesapeake Bay.

The need for additional investment in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure is clearly documented. But, States, localities and private sources can't meet the funding gap alone. States are currently facing the worst fiscal crisis in 50 years and cannot afford to make new investments in clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Water pollution is an interstate problem that demands a Federal response. Water from six States flows into the Chesapeake Bay. Even if Maryland had the resources to complete construction of all needed wastewater infrastructure, the Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts will only be successful if similar investments are made in the five other States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Without Federal assistance, however, it is unlikely that the upstream States will make a substantial investment in the water quality of the Bay. The Congress understood the interstate dynamic of pollution in 1972 when a bipartisan majority passed the Clean Water Act and began funding waste treatment infrastructure. In 1979 and 1980, the Congress provided $5 billion in clean water construction grants alone to assist municipalities with wastewater infrastructure needs. Over the years, budgetary pressures and other factors have reduced that funding level, and in fiscal year 2004, we provided only $1.34 billion in clean water State revolving loan funds.

It is vital that the Federal Government maintain a strong partnership with States and local governments in averting the massive projected funding gap and share in the burden of maintaining and improving the Nation's water infrastructure. Municipalities need significant resources to comply with Federal clean water and drinking water standards. In the 107th Congress, House and Senate committees approved bills to authorize $20 billion over 5 years for the clean water act SRF, underscoring the recognition that something must be done to address this funding gap. An increase in funding for the clean water SRF to $3.2 billion and for the drinking water SRF to $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 is the first step necessary to meet the Federal Government's longstanding commitment in this regard.

This is an investment in the health of Americans and in a clean environment that will pay substantial dividends. Wastewater treatment plants not only prevent billions of tons of pollutants each year from reaching our rivers, lakes, streams, and coasts, they also help prevent water-borne diseases and make waters safe for swimming and fishing.

According to the Water Infrastructure Network:

Clean water supports a $50 billion a year water-based

recreation industry, at least $300 billion a year in coastal

tourism, a $45 billion annual commercial fishing and shell

fishing industry, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year

in basic manufacturing that relies on clean water. Clean

rivers, lakes, and coastlines attract investment in local

communities and increase land values on or near the water,

which in turn, create jobs, add incremental tax base, and

increase income and property tax revenue to local, state, and

the federal government. Some 54,000 community drinking water

systems provide drinking water to more than 250 million

Americans. By keeping water supplies free of contaminants

that cause disease, these systems reduce sickness and related

health care costs and absenteeism in the workforce.

They also create jobs--indeed tens of thousands of jobs--and provide stimulus to the economy. Each $1 billion in sewer and water improvements creates an estimated 40,000 jobs. With more than $5 billion in water infrastructure projects ready for construction, these

jobs would be created immediately with Federal assistance. According to OMB, every Federal dollar invested in water infrastructure generates up to $4 for project loans, so the potential for job creation from this amendment is tremendous.

As I stated earlier, the case for this amendment is compelling. Today, maintaining clear, safe water remains one of our greatest national and global challenges. This budget resolution should not, and need not, come at the expense of human health or a clean environment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help address the massive funding gap that looms on the horizon. Failure to act now risks undermining 30 years of progress in cleaning up our Nation's waters.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, he is the sponsor of the amendment. He has an hour's time on his amendment.

Reserving the right to object, can I get in that queue?

Can I get on that queue?

I object. I object.

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

The Senator mentioned three rollcall votes, and then stay on the floor for other amendments to be offered.

What problem would it cause if we were to offer the amendment after the votes and maybe even discuss it for a few minutes?

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Women's History Month. As an outgrowth of International Women's Day, the Education Task Force of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women planted the seeds of Women's History Month during the week of March 8, 1978. The task force established an agenda of events and celebrations that included a multicultural perspective recognizing the contributions made by all women. Soon thereafter the idea spread, as many Sonoma area schools began holding similar week-long programs.

In 1979, Molly Murphy MacGregor, Director of the Sonoma County Commission, spoke so eloquently during a Women's History Institute Conference about the importance of this recognition that, by the end of the conference, participants vowed to promote the idea of Women's History Week within their own organizations and to secure a Congressional Resolution declaring the week of March 8, National Women's History Week.

By the end of 1980, Maryland's own Senator Barbara Mikulski, then a Member of Congress, sponsored a joint congressional resolution declaring the week of March 8 as National Women's History Week. That same year, President Jimmy Carter issued a presidential message to encourage recognition and celebration of women's historic accomplishments during the week of March 8.

In 1987, at the request of women's organizations, educators, and others, the National Women's History Project petitioned Congress to expand these celebrations to the entire month of March. Upon bipartisan approval of the National Women's History Month Resolution, National History Month was born, affording us the opportunity to focus each year on areas of accomplishment and inspiration--and to honor the many great women leaders from our past and present who have served our Nation so well.

As scientists, writers, doctors, teachers, and mothers, women have shaped our world and guided us down the road to prosperity and peace. For far too long, however, their contributions to the strength and character of our society went unrecognized and undervalued.

Women have led efforts to secure not only their own rights, but have also been the guiding force behind many of the other major social movements of our time--the abolitionist movement, the industrial labor movement, and the civil rights movement, to name a few. We also have women to thank for the establishment of many of our early charitable, philanthropic, and cultural institutions.

I would like to take this time to single out a few women from the State of Maryland whose work and accomplishments are very much in line with this year's theme ``Women Inspiring Hope and Possibility.'' These individuals are from different professions, different age groups, different backgrounds, but they all represent what it means to inspire.

Edith Houghton Hooker, a member of the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame, truly embodied this year's theme. Ms. Houghton Hooker was convinced that progressive reform would occur much more quickly and completely if women achieved the right to vote. In 1909, in the midst of Maryland's suffrage movement, Hooker organized the Just Government League and affiliated her organization with the National American Woman Suffrage Association, NAWSA. In 1910, the defeat of suffrage in the Maryland General Assembly led Hooker and others to believe that, although they should continue to urge suffrage legislation at the State level, the passage of a national constitutional amendment should be the priority of their organization's efforts. Ms. Houghton Hooker also realized early on that while there were several local and statewide suffrage organizations, these groups would have to present a united front in Annapolis and that activists would have to engage in an effective and collaborative public information campaign.

With that in mind, in 1912, she created the Maryland Suffrage News as the official organ of the Just Government League, which served to address each of those needs: unity, a statewide presence, and public information. The News became the weekly voice, not just for the Just Government League, but for the entire suffrage movement in Maryland. In addition to developments regarding suffrage, the News informed its subscribers, most of whom were from the middle class, of the needs and circumstances of working class women, and the problems associated with education, crime and corruption. And, in 1917, largely because of her work in growing the News, Hooker was named President of the Maryland Suffrage Party of Baltimore. Now, the many bound volumes of the Maryland Suffrage News reside in the Maryland Historical Society, where our generation and future generations can learn about the struggles of the suffrage movement, the dedication of suffragists, and the importance of the result.

The late Rachel Carson, another Maryland woman and scientist, inspired the Nation as pioneer of the modern conservation movement. Carson, a well-known naturalist, wrote Silent Spring, which became a key symbol of the new environmental movement in this country. After World War II, Ms. Carson became concerned about the increased use of synthetic chemical pesticides and took it upon herself to alert a national audience to the environmental and human dangers of haphazard use of these chemicals.

In the tradition of women inspiring and helping others, I would be remiss if I failed to mention Clara Barton, founder and first president of the American Red Cross. While recuperating from illness in Europe, she learned of the Treaty of Geneva, which provided relief to sick and wounded soldiers. Upon her return to the U.S., her crusading ensured the signing of the Geneva Treaty in 1882. Ms. Barton founded the American Red Cross in 1881, where she served as its first president. Several years later, she wrote the American Amendment to the Red Cross Constitution, which provided for disaster relief during peacetime as well as war. As part of her legacy, the American Red Cross continues to provide relief work in times of famines,

floods, and earthquakes in the United States and throughout the world.

I also want to mention some of today's heroes from Maryland. Sol de Ande Mendez Eaton serves as an activist for the Maryland Hispanic/ Latino community. Ms. Eaton convened the first Maryland Statewide conference on civil rights as co-chair of the Maryland Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She has worked at the local and State level as a pioneer in the areas of women's health and domestic violence. Every day, she continues to inspire us to work for the rights of others by seeking to reduce discrimination in employment, housing, education and health.

June Bacon-Bercey, another Marylander, the first African American woman to receive a PhD in Atmospheric Sciences, inspires us as well. As a television forecaster, she is also the first African American woman, and indeed the first woman to receive the American Meteorological Service Seal for television-radio weather-casting. In 1979, Ms. Bacon- Bercey became Chief Administrator of Television Activities for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency.

She is a scientist, an international expert on weather and aviation, as well as a wife and mother. Recognizing the difficulties that other women would face in pursuing her profession, she has chosen to go beyond her substantial personal achievement to help other women reach their goals in weather-related professions. In fact, she donated her winnings from a game show to create a scholarship plan for young women wanting to join meteorology. In view of this year's theme, I commend Ms. Bacon-Bercey not only for her example and inspiration to other women, but for her generosity in directly helping others reach their dreams.

Since the first woman received a medical degree from a United States medical school, in 1848, female doctors have helped shape and change the course of medicine. A model physician in the State of Maryland, Dr. Marie Amos Dobyns, has worked in Maryland for over 20 years and served over 3,000 patients. As an Eastern Cherokee Native American, she integrates her heritage into her medical practice and her vision of a partnership between patient and physician has inspired would-be physicians across the country to seek out innovative approaches to offering comprehensive patient-centered care.

I am privileged to speak in honor of the mothers, wives, daughters, friends and neighbors that have inspired and opened up possibilities for us all. We should take this month to redouble our efforts to ensure that their work has not been for naught. In that regard, I ask us all to take Women's History Month as a time to reflect on the contributions of women, but also as a time to refocus on how much needs to be accomplished to achieve full equality.

Mr. President, today I am submitting legislation together with Senator Mikulski that would recognize the achievements of The Garden Club of America on the occasion of its 91st annual meeting in Washington, DC, from April 24 through 27, 2004. This meeting in our Nation's Capital is especially significant because it occurs here only once every twenty-five years. This legislation recognizes and honors The Garden Club and the work of its 17,000 members to improve our country.

Since its founding in 1913, The Garden Club of America has grown to include 195 member clubs in 40 States and the District of Columbia. It is a recognized leader in the fields of horticulture, conservation, historic preservation, civic improvement, and has significant influence in the protection of America's environment.

Right here in the District of Columbia we can witness the results of The Garden Club's labor. Indeed it played an instrumental role in the founding of the National Arboretum and the development of the Archives of American Gardens at the Smithsonian Institution.

Perhaps even more importantly, The Garden Club has become a significant impetus for community service across the United States. The scope of The Garden Club of America goes well beyond its numerous publications, its public plant and flower shows, and its national medalists. It is a source for the exchange of ideas and a platform for the betterment of our communities across this great country. The purpose of The Garden Club of America is to stimulate the knowledge and love of gardening, but also to share the advantages of association through educational meetings, conferences, correspondence, and publications, and to improve the quality of the environment through conservation and civic improvement.

As a Marylander I know first hand of the contributions The Garden Club of America has made to our State. Ladew Topiary Gardens is a prime example of the edification and enjoyment that stems from the support of The Garden Club of America. Since 1971, Ladew Gardens has used its 22 acres of gardens to educate children, entertain families, and promote the importance of beautiful landscapes within our communities. Every spring and summer, hundreds of families congregate in the gardens to enjoy the Sunday concerts, afternoon picnics, and self-guided educational nature walks. And every year, hundreds of families leave the gardens with an exhilarated appreciation for America's outdoors, and an enriched desire to conserve that beauty.

The Garden Club of America has asked for very little in return for its dedication to America's beautiful landscapes. I am submitting this legislation today in the hope that we in the Congress can recognize this significant contribution as The Garden Club of America holds its annual meeting here in our Nation's Capital. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this legislation.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I want to clarify one point.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I understand this point the Senator is making is compounded by the fact that what we are looking at with this budget is just a 5-year projection.

It is my understanding it includes within it the idea of making these tax cuts that were passed permanent instead of temporary. Of course, the people who put the tax cuts in place were the ones who made them temporary. Now they are coming back, seeking a change in the law to make them permanent. They, in effect, are changing the tax structure. Otherwise, they would expire.

But they are only projecting a 5-year period. As I understand it, if you do the 5-year period, this is the increase in the deficit here, just this amount. But the full brunt of this doesn't hit home until the subsequent period. So if you take a 10-year period, which we have done in the past--we have used 10-year projections rather than 5--if you take the 10-year period, look what happens to the cost. There is a deficit explosion. It is just staggering.

Of course, we are only being shown this part of the picture instead of being shown all of the picture, which shows a $1.6 trillion 10-year cost. There is a $1.6 trillion 10-year cost to extending the tax cuts over this next 10-year period.

So the Senator is making one point about the understatement of the situation we are moving in, but this also dramatizes another very important point. We are being set on a fiscal course that spells disaster for the country, and we need to recognize that. It is one of the reasons I joined with the Senator in the Budget Committee in voting against this budget. This is not a sound, solid, steady course to be on, in terms of the Nation's fiscal policy.

That is right. Exactly.

You see it runs along here like this. This is as far as the chairman's budget projects it, right to there. Then it stays on that line a little bit and then look what happens to it--it is incredible. It is the shooting star deficit, the way this thing is going.

At least.

Will the Senator yield further?

I would like to pick up on the Senator's point about the cost of adjusting the alternative minimum tax. Of course, the alternative minimum tax was put in place in order to tax wealthy people who are using various deductions and exemptions, and so forth, not to pay taxes. The idea was, at a minimum you ought to pay a certain amount of tax. There was a huge public outcry about that--justifiably so in my opinion. So we put it into place. Of course, as the economy evolves, you have inflation and so forth and so on, and you have to keep adjusting it; otherwise, it is going to work its way down further into the middle class. It was never intended to do that. So it has been adjusted from time to time.

In fact, the President is proposing in his budget, as I understand it, a 1-year

adjustment--not projecting it out. Of course, that raises the question immediately in your mind: Why a 1-year adjustment? I think it is obvious why, if you do this, because it shows if you really adjust it as it ought to be adjusted, you are projecting out $658 billion in a 10-year cost to reform the alternative minimum tax. There is a $658 billion 10-year cost to reform the alternative minimum tax. Here you have $1.6 trillion to extend and make permanent the existing tax cuts, the sum total of which is $2.2 trillion.

You are telling me it is real money. Absolutely. The Senator is absolutely right. This budget is kind of you see this, but you do not see what is behind the scenes, what is coming. We cut off the picture and look at a certain point. It works pretty good. You cut it off here before this line takes off. You see what we are showing-- this part. It is an exercise in prudence to come along and say: Wait a second; let us see how that works in the outyears. All of a sudden, you see it just takes off like that.

The Senator is absolutely right.

Will the Senator yield?

It is interesting. If you deal with the first year of the 10-year period, it is $23 billion, as I understand it. But you can't assume, well, we will just project that out at $23 billion a year, each year. So the cost over 10 years would be $230 billion, which is what someone just coming to it at first blush might assume. The fact is that the cost escalates rapidly. So over the 10-year period, it is not 10 times $23 billion, or $230 billion; it is $658 billion, almost triple what you might suppose it would be.

Will the Senator yield for a further question?

The Senator enumerated the three concerns: a 10-year projection of the cost of the tax cut, the alternative minimum tax; the Senator mentioned the failure to reflect in the budget any cost for our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. I want to be clear on this point. Am I correct in understanding that the budget which the President sent to the Congress for the next fiscal year beginning on October 1 of this year, 2004--the budget he submitted to the Congress, the spending blueprint--has zero for the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan? Is that correct?

Absolutely. Yes.

They are already talking about that around town. The other day, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve himself talked about cutting back on the benefits under Social Security.

Here is what has happened. It needs to be understood. There is a direct connection.

These large tax cuts that primarily benefit very wealthy people-- there is some benefit for others, no question. The chairman talked about that today, but in the total picture of where the benefits are going, that is a relatively small portion. Most of the benefits go right up to the top group in society by income and wealth. They say we are running deficits, so to cover the deficits they have to use up the Social Security surplus. Then they say to correct the using up of the Social Security surplus, we have to cut Social Security benefits.

It must be understood, these things are linked. The reason they have the deficit which now says they must cut Social Security benefits is because they gave the very large tax cuts to the elite, producing the deficit, which resulted in drawing down the Social Security surplus which then leads them to say, we have to cut the Social Security benefits.

These are choices. This administration has made a choice. The choice the administration has made is to put tax cuts for the elite ahead of sustaining Social Security benefits. That is the choice they have made. It needs to be understood.

Does the Senator agree there is a direct connection in this regard?

In other words, a third of the Nation's retirees get at least 90 percent of their income from Social Security, another third get from between 50 and 90 percent of their income from Social Security. It demonstrates how dependent retired people are on Social Security to keep them out of poverty so they can lead a reasonable life.

Will the Senator yield?

Does that chart mean if one-third of the tax cuts that are being proposed to be made permanent, if only one-third of them remain not made permanent, that would more than cover the shortfall in Social Security?

Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague from North Dakota joining with me in this exploration of the implications of this budget.

I will talk about job creation for a moment, and to indicate any budget we deal with, which is the most important Government document we act upon, contains thousands of decisions that are critical to our national life. Those decisions reflect important choices in terms of the priorities for our country.

We have just been engaged in a discussion about tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. Are we more concerned with strengthening Social Security to make sure that people in retirement are adequately covered or making the necessary investments in education, transportation, and the environment? All of those decisions are involved in crafting the budget.

In its composite, the budget is a very important macroeconomic document because it sets the fiscal path for dealing with the overall economy.

We ask the question, Will the budget fund the programs, create jobs, and strengthen our economy? Will the budget have long-run structural deficits? What will be the impact of those deficits on our future economic performance? Will it move us toward full employment or away from it?

We talked about the credibility of the President's budget and the fact that it fails to account fully for what the projections should be. We talked about the budget's failure to project for 10 years to show the full cost of making these tax cuts permanent, the failure to adjust for the alternative minimum tax, and the fact that the budget has zero in it for our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who are they kidding? Everyone knows that our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to cost something. Then they say: Well, we cannot really estimate. They should make a good-faith estimate for inclusion in the budget. We are confronted with these facts, and again and again we are not getting the full picture. It is a little bit like things are under shells. If you lift off the cover, all of a sudden you discover another problem.

When the President proposed his first massive tax cut, he told us, ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits.'' That is what President Bush said when he came into office.

In the first budget he submitted, he predicted, for fiscal year 2004--the year we are now in--that we would have a $262 billion surplus. This was the President's prediction.

The following year, with a budget already in deficit, the President advocated another tax cut. At that time, he said, ``Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' And the President's budget at that time--that is, the next year--stated the deficit would be so short term that by fiscal year 2004--the year we are now in--the Government would be back in surplus by $14 billion.

Last year, on the brink of war with Iraq, the President proposed yet another tax cut. He also submitted a budget that did not include the cost of the war. He predicted that the deficit for fiscal year 2004 would be $307 billion.

Now, in 3 years, the President had shifted from predicting a surplus of $262 billion for 2004 to the next year when he predicted a surplus of $14 billion for 2004. Then, when he submitted the 2004 budget, he predicted a deficit of $307 billion. So over the 3-year period, we went from a $262 billion surplus, predicted for the year we are in, to a $307 billion deficit. That is a change of $569 billion.

It is pretty clear that although the President said, when he submitted the 2004 budget, he was predicting a deficit of $307 billion, it looks now as if the 2004 deficit will be about $520 billion. That is $780 billion more than the President predicted in 2001, $535 billion more than he predicted in 2002, and $214 billion more than he predicted when he sent this year's budget--the budget we are in--to the Congress.

So we are told we can do these big tax cuts and that it will not matter because we are not going to have a deficit. And here we are deeply in the hole.

What is the consequence of this? Some might say: Well, he is producing jobs. We had an economic slowdown, and now we are producing jobs. We are putting the country back to work.

Let's look at those predictions and what has actually happened.

In the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration forecasted that in 2004 the economy would have 138.3 million jobs. Last year, the President lowered that estimate to 135.2 million jobs. And in his most recent economic report, he lowered it again to 132.7 million jobs. In other words, in just 2 years, the forecast for jobs in the country has been lowered by 6 million.

When the President passed the 2003 tax cut, the administration predicted that by January 2004, the economy would create over 2 million jobs. In the fall of 2003, Secretary Snow predicted the U.S. economy would create 2 million new jobs from the third quarter of 2003 until the third quarter of 2004--an average of over 200,000 jobs a month.

What has happened? We just got the figures on Friday for the month of February. For the month of February, it was reported that the economy created 21,000 new jobs in February--21,000--none of them in the private sector, incidentally; zero private sector jobs were created.

When Secretary Snow made this prediction of just over 2 million new jobs last fall, we would have needed an average of about 200,000 new jobs a month in order to meet his prediction. The performance has been so dismal, we have only averaged 59,000 new jobs per month over the last 2 months. We have to produce jobs 444,000 a month from now until the third quarter of this year for Secretary Snow's prediction to be borne out.

The economy is not creating these jobs. We face a real difficult jobs situation.

Certainly.

The tax cut alone.

Well, I say to my colleagues it is classic trickle-down theory. It has been discredited before. Yet here it is back before us again, classic trickle-down economics. Every administration since Herbert Hoover, which was, of course, classic trickle-down economics, Democratic and Republican, has had a net creation of jobs over the course of its administration. In other words, over that 4-year period, every administration were able to have a net gain in jobs.

This administration is about 2.3 million jobs below where the Nation was when they came into office--down about 2.3 million jobs. It is the first administration since Herbert Hoover that will not show a net gain in jobs over the course of its 4-year tenure. That fact needs to be laid out before the American people.

This recession we experienced began 35 months ago, the first few months into the Bush administration. The economy today has fewer jobs than it did then. This is the first recession since the Great Depression in which the economy failed, over a 35-month period, to recreate all the jobs that were lost in that recession. In a typical business cycle, we long ago would have recouped those jobs and gone on from there. That has been the case--and this is a long time period--in every recession we have experienced since the Great Depression.

But here we have a situation in which jobs are not being created to close the gap, and there is no real prospect, in the few months remaining, of meeting Treasury Secretary Snow's prediction. To do so, we would have to average about 444,000 jobs per month out into the fall of this year. Over the last 3 months, we averaged only 42,000 new jobs per month, as opposed to 440,000.

This, of course, raises a number of difficult problems. We have seen manufacturing jobs continue to fall and they have now fallen for 43 consecutive months. We see temporary jobs increasing. We see people dropping out of the labor force. Last month, 392,000 people left the labor force. People come in and say, you know the unemployment rate didn't go up. But if people drop out of the labor force and are not looking for work, they are not counted as unemployed. One of the reasons is they become so discouraged they drop out. That helps to keep the unemployment rate flat, but the exodus from the labor market is reflected in the job figures.

Yes.

If the Senator will yield, it is not only that we have not been able to get up to here, we have not been able to even get back to the jobs we had at the beginning of the recession. We are still well below, about 2.3 million jobs, where we were when the recession began in the early months of 2001, absolutely.

The last chart my colleague presented is an extremely important one because it shows the percent of long-term unemployed among the unemployed is at record levels, higher than it has been since 1984. In fact, close to 23 percent of the unemployed workers have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. It has been above 20 percent now for 17 consecutive months. For a year and a half, the percent of unemployed who are long-term unemployed is above 20 percent, which is an important benchmark. The last time we had a period that ran that long was 20 years ago. The Senator's chart showed exactly that. That was back in 1984.

That is why this effort that has been repeatedly made on the floor of the Senate and in the committee just last week to address extending unemployment insurance benefits is so important. That effort has been turned back. I plead with my colleagues on the other side to move ahead on extending unemployment insurance benefits.

We still have a serious labor market weakness. We have not recovered the jobs. It is not as though you could say a lot of job opportunities have opened up and people can go back to work. That has not happened in this instance.

Long-term unemployment is at record levels. Nearly 2 million people have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. Twenty-six weeks is the period that the traditional unemployment benefits cover. In the past, we have always extended unemployment insurance benefits so people can meet the problem of providing for their families. We have actually provided more benefits in the past than we have in this recession.

In the previous Bush administration, the program was extended and then extended again. We built up the unemployment insurance trust fund for this purpose: to fund these benefits when we encounter an economic downturn. There is over $15 billion in the unemployment insurance trust fund specifically collected for the purpose of paying unemployment insurance benefits in an economic downturn.

I joined with my colleague in the committee the other day to offer an amendment to make a provision within the budget for extending unemployment insurance benefits. Regrettably, it was turned down on a straight party-line vote. I anticipate that amendment will be offered again on the floor, and I hope my colleagues will reflect upon it before that occasion arises.

We need to do something. These are people who were working. You cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits unless you have a work record that entitles you to collect them. These are not, if you want to say, malingerers or people who don't want to work. These are people who had jobs. They lost their jobs through no fault of their own. If it is their fault, they cannot get unemployment insurance benefits. If they are to blame, if they have not performed on the job, they do not get unemployment insurance benefits. These are people who were working, in many instances had a long working career. They are out of a job. They are in a labor market where jobs are not being created, as my colleague dramatically illustrated with the chart he showed. How are they going to provide for their families? What are these responsible, hard-working Americans to do in terms of meeting the needs of their families?

Yet we have been turned back on the effort to extend unemployment insurance benefits, and I very much hope when the issue comes before us that Members will reflect and agree we need to do something about this pressing problem.

I will make a couple more points before I close.

This fiscal situation of the United States in which we find ourselves and the magnitude of it has drawn very sharp comment from objective observers. Listen to what the IMF said only recently:

U.S. Government finances have experienced a remarkable

turnaround in recent years. Within only a few years, hard-won

gains of the previous decade have been lost, and instead of

budget surpluses, deficits are again projected as far as the

eye can see.

Let me repeat that. This is the IMF commenting about U.S. Government finances:

Within only a few years, hard-won gains of the previous

decade have been lost, and instead of budget surpluses,

deficits are again projected as far as the eye can see.

The President says he is going to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My colleague pointed out, I think with great perception, that was not in the cards. It is not sustained by the numbers.

If we are going to have a debate, we cannot just play around with the numbers as though they do not mean anything. We have to have some hard facts upon which to work. These structural deficits that are built in this budget are extremely harmful to the economy as we move ahead--a promise to raise interest rates, reduce economic growth, decrease the number of jobs, increase our vulnerability to a sudden economic crisis. A responsible budget would not encompass a structural deficit, and if there is a structural budget deficit, a responsible budget would seek to correct the imbalance.

I could go on at some length about the choices made within the budget with respect to what our priorities ought to be, but I make this fundamental point: In every instance, there is a choice. You do not make one decision, for instance, to cut taxes for very wealthy people which then results in a larger deficit and then turn around and say to educators who say, We cannot carry through on the No Child Left Behind legislation, that there is no funding to address your complaint. That complaint is coming from all over the country. Out in the Rocky Mountain States, we have educational officials telling us they cannot carry through on that program. They are making that point very forcefully.

I was reading about it only today or yesterday in the paper. They said: We can't carry through on it. They are told, We can't carry through on it because we have this deficit to worry about. Why do we have the deficit to worry about? We have this big deficit because we are doing these big tax cuts for wealthy people. So the choice that was made in the President's budget was to do the tax cuts for the elite rather than fund the No Child Left Behind program. That was the choice.

I think that is a bad choice. I think the country thinks it is a bad choice. But there is a need to understand when you put this budget together, whatever you do on the one hand has an impact on the other hand. You cannot avoid that.

If you did not do these extensive tax cuts--which the President wants to make permanent--with those huge costs, the deficit would not run up; you would be able to hold the deficit down and do something about education and health care. But the President has put the Nation in an absolute deficit box.

Certainly.

I think that is less than 1 percent of the American public; is it not?

What that says is he could fund No Child Left Behind and he would still have $36 billion left of the tax cut; is that right?

There are other examples of this. I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee to fully fund the firefighter grant program. That amount is $900 million--not billions as we are talking here but just $900 million. Two years in a row, the Congress has appropriated $750 million. So we have not appropriated the fully authorized amount but we have gotten up fairly close to it at $750 million.

The President's budget submitted to the Congress had $500 million. In other words, it cut the program by one-third, $250 million, from the level it had been for 2 successive fiscal years. These are grants that go out to firefighters across the country to try to enhance their professionalism, upgrade their equipment, better prepare them to deal with the threats we confront.

One of the things we are very anxious to deal with is that one-third of all the firefighters in the country do not have the equipment, the breathing equipment to protect them in a serious fire, from smoke inhalation. That is one of the things we would like to take care of. Yet the President's budget proposed to the Congress cut the funding for this program by one-third.

The President is now running political ads showing firefighters on 9/ 11 moving out of the wreckage, and there is a stretcher with a flag on it. We know what the firefighters did. We know the heroism they have shown.

Every year, I go to the National Fallen Firefighters ceremony, which is held at the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial, which is in Emmitsburg, Maryland, the location of the U.S. Fire Academy. Families come from all over the country. There is a weekend of events and ceremonies to mark the memory and the heroism of fallen firefighters. The year after 9/11 we could not do it in Emmitsburg. There were too many people and so the ceremony was held at the MCI Center in Washington because the number jumped so tremendously as a consequence of those deaths in New York.

In money terms, that is not a big item, but in its significance and in what it stands for, I think it is very substantial. We know our first responders place themselves at risk. They are the first called upon.

There were firefighters going up the steps of the World Trade Center in an effort to rescue people when people in the building were coming down the steps in order to escape. In effect, they were placing themselves in further danger in order to save their fellow human beings. They did not know these people. They were all strangers to them but they were responding to their duty. It is extraordinary when we stop and think about it.

The impact of it is obviously recognized by some of the President's people because they are putting it in this political ad. But I would like to see them take the program up to $900 million to do the firefighter grants so we could provide firefighters across the country with the protective equipment which they need as they carry out this very dangerous occupation. That would require only $400 million. The President's tax cuts provide $45 billion for the top 1 percent. Will the top 1 percent, those making over $337,000, who are getting an enormous--what is the tax return they are getting? Does the Senator have that figure in his mind, $120,000 or something?

Those earning over $1 million get $127,000 per year. As a category, they get $45 billion. Would they be willing to reduce that to $44,600,000,000 in order that we could fund these firefighter grants at the full authorization level of $900 million instead of the $500 million that is in the President's budget, which itself represented a cut of $250 million from what Congress had appropriated in each of the other 2 years?

Is it unfair, inequitable, unjust to say that in the order of priorities, funding those firefighter grants should come ahead of a small portion of these tax cuts for those making $337,000 a year? I defy anyone to argue the equities of that case.

That is why this is not a good budget. That is why we voted against it in the committee and that is why over the coming days, under the leadership of our very able colleague from North Dakota, we will put before this body--I and others and certainly the Senator from North Dakota himself--amendments that will frame the choice in terms of priorities. Those are the choices we need to face. Let's put the choices out there.

Do my colleagues think it is reasonable to take a small portion of this tax cut and use it for this purpose, or must every single penny of what the President is seeking for the very elite go to the very elite, despite these other pressing needs?

As I understand it, in the coming days this week, opportunities will be presented to offer amendments which will frame those choices. The Senator has framed one. Everyone talks a good game about education, including the President. The question is, will you put the resources there to do the job?

As the Senator points out, fully funding education is more costly than the example that I have been citing. But nevertheless, for just over $9 billion we could fully fund No Child Left Behind, which would address what we are hearing from the States, who are saying now, We can't do this job. You have saddled us with a job without the resources. The $9 billion is one-fifth of this tax cut that is going to those making over $337,000 each and every year.

Those amendments framing those choices need to be put to this body. I look forward to the responses my colleagues will make to them.

I yield the floor.

Is the Senator controlling time?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by the able Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor. This amendment will extend the unemployment benefits which lapsed at the end of December--they have lapsed and are not available--and continue the program for 6 months, through the end of June.

The program lapsed not because the fundamental economic problem which led to its creation--the very weak labor market--has been solved. That market's weakness remains a serious concern.

Long-term unemployment--the problem for which this program was created--is near record levels. There are nearly 1.9 million unemployed workers in America who are long-term unemployed. That is, they have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. They constitute almost 23 percent of all unemployed workers. This level has been above 20 percent for the past 16 months, the longest stretch of long-term unemployment at this level in more than 20 years.

It has been 34 months since the recession began. The economy has almost 2 percent fewer jobs than it had 34 months ago. Jobs are not being created in sufficient number to close this gap. Job creation is far below what is needed to improve the situation for unemployed workers.

Some colleagues have argued that we do not need the program because we are no longer losing jobs. However, the job growth that the economy is producing is too slow to put back to work those who have lost their jobs. Of course, the administration predicted after they passed the 2003 tax cut, that by last month, the economy would have created over 2 million jobs. It created 300,000 jobs over that period.

This amendment's proposal is not excessive by historical standards. In fact, the administration's refusal to act is what constitutes a break with historical precedent. Again and again in the past, we have extended unemployment insurance to provide some assistance to the long- term unemployed.

Finally, let me simply make this point: We build up an unemployment trust fund in good times to fund the benefits when we have an economic downturn. There is over $15 billion in the unemployment insurance trust fund to pay unemployment insurance benefits. We have millions out there needing this help. This money was collected for that purpose. It should be used for that purpose.

I strongly urge support of this amendment.

I, too, will do everything I can to support funding in Michigan in conference.

Mr. President, this reauthorization of the highway and transit program is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will consider in this Congress. Its enactment will help restore the federal commitment to our surface transportation infrastructure--the lifeblood for our economy as well as our quality of life.

Ensuring that our Nation has a modern, safe and efficient transportation network has been one of my highest priorities in the United States Senate. As ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over our nation's transit programs, and as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have fought vigorously to bolster federal investment in transportation infrastructure and to put in place a sensible, balanced framework in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to enable the nation to sustain its economic growth and enhance the quality of life of our citizens.

The reauthorization bill, known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, or SAFETEA, that is before the Senate authorizes $318 billion in funding over the next six years for maintaining and improving our Nation's and States' highways, bridges and transit systems and addressing safety issues.

There is a huge backlog of needed repairs, replacements and upgrades to bring our transportation network--our roads, bridges, transit systems and railroads--up to standards. The Department of Transportation's Conditions and Performance Report estimates that an average of $127 billion per year is needed over the next two decades to maintain and improve the condition of these systems. Other estimates show an even greater need. This backlog constrains our Nation's economic competitiveness, leaves more and more Americans stuck in traffic, contributes to air pollution and results in unnecessary fatalities. In my judgment, we must make prudent investments in our transportation systems not only to prevent further deterioration of the network--but to improve the system, relieve congestion and save lives.

These investments will also boost our economy and create jobs--at a time when new jobs and a boost to the economy are desperately needed. The United States Chamber of Commerce has estimated that each $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,000 direct jobs and there are indirect impacts as well. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that in 2001, Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $69.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. As these figures show, congestion has a real economic cost, in addition to the psychological and social costs of spending hours each day sitting in traffic. We cannot afford to let these costs of congestion grow any further. The investments made under this bill will help us make progress in our efforts to combat traffic congestion and deteriorating conditions on our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems.

For our Nation's roadways and bridges, this legislation authorizes an average increase of nearly 36 percent in funding to enable states and localities to make desperately needed repairs and improvements. Maryland's share of highway funding will grow by 40 percent over the next 6 years compared to the level provided in TEA-21--more than a $1 billion increase to help upgrade our highway infrastructure.

As a small ``bridge'' State with criss-crossing interstate routes, a State with high population density and with high traffic congestion, Maryland has tremendous highway infrastructure needs. Maryland is the fifth most densely populated State in the Nation. Maryland roads, including both State highways and other roads, now serve almost 54 billion vehicle miles of travel annually. Our State has the second largest urban interstate traffic density and the sixth largest percentage of roads in urban areas in the United States. As part of the northeast corridor Maryland experiences an extremely high volume of through traffic, especially on roadways such as I-95. Maryland is one of the few States in the Nation with two major metropolitan areas, Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, and two major beltways with some of the highest traffic volumes in the country--in excess of 150,000 average daily traffic--within 30 miles of each other. Our state has the

sixth highest congestion cost in the nation, and these congestion costs continue to rise. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, from 2000 to 2001, the annual cost in Washington, DC is up from $631 to $667/year. In the Baltimore Region, the annual cost went up from nearly $400/year to $455/year. In the Washington metropolitan area we have the second longest average commute time in the Nation.

In the next 20 years, Maryland's driving age population is expected to increase by nearly 20 percent, the number of licensed drivers by 25 percent, and the number of registered vehicles by 29 percent and this will mean significantly more traffic on our roads and pressures on our transit systems. Maryland's Department of Transportation is at a crossroads, facing deficient roads and bridges as well as key gaps and bottlenecks within the State's transportation system that are known to cause delay and congestion. Maryland has an estimated unfunded capital need for more than $13.2 billion in highway maintenance, construction and reconstruction over the next ten years. Clearly, Maryland must have adequate funding to address these transportation challenges and to facilitate overall mobility and the funds made available under this measure will be a significant help in this regard.

Importantly, the measure preserves the dedicated funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, CMAQ, program which helps States and local governments improve air quality in non-attainment areas under the Clean Air Act; the Transportation Enhancement set-aside provisions which support bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other community based projects, as well as the other core TEA-21 programs--Interstate maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge and the Surface Transportation Program. Likewise, TEA-21's basic principles of flexibility, intermodalism, strategic infrastructure investment, and commitment to safety are retained.

I am especially pleased that the legislation includes a provision which sets aside 2 percent of a State's Surface Transportation Program for stormwater runoff mitigation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, polluted stormwater from impervious surfaces such as roads is a leading cause of impairment for nearly 40 percent of U.S. waterways not meeting water quality standards. In the Chesapeake Bay region, it is estimated that runoff from highways contributes nearly 7 million pounds of nitrogen, 1 million pounds of phosphorous and 167,000 tons of sediment annually to the Bay. In Maryland alone, the Center for Watershed Protection estimates that the 7500 miles of Federal-aid highways generate yearly loads of 1.2 million pounds of nitrogen, 127,000 pounds of phosphorous and 25,000 pounds of sediment into Maryland waterways and eventually into Chesapeake Bay each year. The stormwater provision will provide more than $73 million for the Bay States and local governments for stormwater abatement of which $15 million would be available for Maryland.

For our Nation's transit systems, the legislation authorizes $56.5 million--$15.5 billion more than provided in TEA-21--to modernize and expand our transit facilities. These funds will go a long way to meeting the growing demand for transit in cities, towns, rural areas, and suburban jurisdictions across the country. Maryland's formula share of transit funding will grow by nearly 60 percent over the next 6 years from $572 million to $907 million. These funds are absolutely critical to Maryland's efforts to maintain and upgrade the Baltimore and Washington Metro systems, the MARC commuter rail system serving Baltimore, Washington, DC, Frederick and Brunswick, and the Baltimore Light Rail system. Bus systems and para-transit systems for elderly and disabled people throughout Maryland will also receive a big boost in funding.

I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes the Transit in Parks Act or TRIP which I introduced. This new Federal transit grant initiative will support the development of alternative transportation services--everything from rail or clean fuel bus projects to pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. It will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks--quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact.

I especially thank the staff of the Banking Committee for the fine work done on the transit title of the bill. First, I commend Chairman Shelby and his staff, including Sherry Little, Rich Steinmann, Peggy Kuhn, and of course, Doug Nappi and Kathy Casey. I also compliment my own staff, who did a superb job, providing needed additional resources to meet the transit needs of all Americans. My transit team was most ably led by Sarah Kline, and I also thank Aaron Klein, Charlie Stek, and Kate Mattice. Let me also acknowledge the major contribution made by the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation and the staff of Subcommittee Chairman Allard, Tewana Wilkerson, and Ranking Member Reed, Neil Campbell.

Like any other complex and comprehensive piece of legislation, this bill has its share of imperfections. But if we are to ensure not only the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services, but also the future competitiveness and productivity of our economy, we must make these investments, and move forward with this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this measure.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join in commemorating African-American History Month and in

recognizing a crucial part of our diversity: the vast history and legacy that African Americans have contributed to the founding and building of our Nation.

In 1915, Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson founded the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, which shortly after its creation, began a campaign to establish Negro History Week. In 1926, the second week of February was chosen to recognize the contributions of African Americans to American society. In 1976, this week of observance was expanded to a month and became African-American History Month.

Each year, the Association, now known as the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, designates a theme for the Black History Month observance. This year's theme, ``Before Brown, Beyond Boundaries, Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka'' marks one of the most seminal moments in the fight for equal rights in this country--the Supreme Court's May 15, 1954 ruling that ``[i]n the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place.''

It was a ruling that was met with violent resistance and created enormous upheaval. A number of States adopted policies of ``massive resistance'' seeking to avert compliance with the Court's decision. Many went so far as to adopt resolutions calling for the State Government to interpose itself, parens patriae, between its citizens and the Federal government's efforts to impose desegregation.

But in the years that followed Brown, inspired by the framework for progress that the Court had provided, our civil rights leaders and the movement they created never backed down. They instead redoubled their heroic efforts often in the face of great risk of personal harm.

From the refusal by Rosa Parks to move to the back of a public bus, which ignited the Montgomery bus boycott, to efforts of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others to secure civil rights and desegregate public facilities, to efforts of the NAACP to clarify and expand the First amendment's protections related to free association, Brown's effects were felt across the Nation and beyond the sphere of public education.

And, of course, Thurgood Marshall--who I should note was born in Baltimore and attended Frederick Douglass High School--was at the center of these efforts. After graduating at the top of his class at Howard Law School, Marshall came back to Baltimore and, after working with NAACP to accomplish the landmark result in Brown led the legal fight thereafter to extend its precedent throughout the civil rights arena. After leaving the NAACP, Marshall put his convictions, determination, and legal prowess to work as a Federal judge, then Solicitor General, and ultimately the first African-American Justice on the Supreme Court. There, he was, as Justice William Brennan remembered him, the ``voice of authority . . . the voice of reason . . . [a]nd a voice with an unwavering message: that the Constitution's protections must not be denied to anyone and that the Court must give its constitutional doctrine the scope and sensitivity needed to assure that result.''

At the beginning of the last century, our Nation was a vastly different place than it is today. The country was divided along racial lines and racism was accepted and institutionalized. African Americans were not allowed to vote, and the opportunities available to African Americans were few.

Today, thanks to the visions of a few and the sacrifices of many--and in significant part thanks to the lasting effects of Brown--that situation has changed. After much hardship, African Americans have made great strides in many areas and now participate in every sector of our society. Throughout the past 100 years, African Americans have made remarkable contributions to the Nation and the world as mathematicians, scientists, novelists, poets, politicians, and members of the armed services.

Through the lessons and struggles of the last century and the trying first few years of this century, Americans have shown the world how people of all races, colors, religions and nationalities create the fabric of our Nation, a fabric that is richer because of our differences. This month, we honor the special contribution African Americans have made to that fabric.

But there is much work left to be done. When in 1981 the City of Baltimore unveiled a statue to Marshall, the Justice told the gathered crowd ``I just want to be sure that when you see this statue, you won't think that's the end of it. I won't have it that way. There's too much to be done.'' So we take the occasion of African-American History Month to celebrate the steps that we have taken toward equality, but also to remind ourselves of how far we have to go.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Mikulski, Warner, Akaka, Allen, Collins, Kennedy, Durbin, Dayton, Levin, Johnson, and Murray in submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that parity between Federal civilian pay and military pay should be maintained.

Disparate treatment of civilian and military pay goes against the longstanding policy of parity for all those who have chosen to serve our Nation--whether that service is in the civilian workforce or in the armed services. In fact, a comparison of military and civilian pay increases by the Congressional Research Service finds that in 16 of the last 18 years military and civilian pay increases have been identical.

Indeed, the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act Conference Report passed by Congress included a pay parity provision that would provide a 4.1 percent average pay adjustment to military and all civilian employees.

Federal civilian and military employees work side-by-side doing the important work of the Nation, including protecting U.S. citizens from terrorism. As a prime example, during last week's response to the discovery of ricin in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, civilian employees from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Capitol Police, the FBI, and the Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response Force from Indian Head, Maryland responded jointly to the crisis and collaborated in the cleanup of the affected Senate Office Buildings. Now more than ever, an efficient and effective Federal Government requires this kind of civilian/military collaboration. We should not undermine the morale of our dedicated public civil servants by failing to bring their pay in line with that of the military personnel they work along side of every day.

Moreover, both the uniformed services and the Federal civilian workforce need to address critical retention and recruitment problems. Our Federal Government is facing a ``human capital'' crisis as a result of attrition that threatens institutional experience and knowledge at every level. By the end of 2005, one out of every three current Federal workers will be eligible for optional retirement and by 2007 an estimated 53 percent of the Federal workforce will be eligible to retire. These vacancies will occur in an era in which those entering the workforce are far less likely to join public service. As evidence of this, a 2002 survey commissioned by the Partnership for Public Service reveals that only one in four college-educated workers expressed significant interest in working for the Federal Government.

Inequitable pay only serves to perpetuate this lack of interest. Congress has continually asked Federal employees to make significant sacrifices for the sake of our Nation's fiscal health, including more than $200 billion in deficit reduction contributed by Federal employees and retirees in lost and delayed compensation. In addition, FEPCA-- legislation passed in 1990 to bring the pay of Federal employees in line with that offered in the private sector--has never been fully implemented. Nonetheless, Federal employees have continued to provide high quality service to the American public, usually with fewer resources and personnel.

One way to ensure the Federal Government is able to attract and retain qualified public servants is to ensure parity between civil service employees and members of the uniformed services. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important resolution.

Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished colleague from Alabama, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, in very strong support of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2004.

First, let me express my appreciation to the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, who has worked assiduously on this legislation, reaching across the aisle in a most cooperative manner to develop a transit bill that will begin to address the urgent needs faced by communities all across the country.

As a result of his efforts and those of other members of our committee on the transit bill, the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2004 was reported out of the Banking Committee yesterday morning with unanimous support. Every member of the committee supported this legislation.

Let me also acknowledge the contributions made by Senator Allard of Colorado and Senator Reed of Rhode Island, the chairman and ranking member of our Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, who have worked with us step by step to develop the package that is being brought to the floor of the Senate.

I also thank the distinguished leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Inhofe

and Ranking Member Jeffords, as well as the leadership of the Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, with whom we have worked closely in order to address a number of important issues related to the financing of this bill. Without their help and the very committed work of the Senate leadership, Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle, I doubt that we could be where we are today. I think it is important to recognize the broad effort and the broad support that exists for this legislation.

As we approached the expiration of the previous surface transportation bill, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, known as TEA-21, the Banking Committee and its Housing and Transportation Subcommittee held a series of hearings--some at the full committee level and some at the subcommittee level--on the Federal transit program and its contribution to reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and improving our quality of life.

Over the course of those hearings, which extended over roughly a 2- year period, we heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, Federal Transit Administrator Jenna Dorn, representatives of transit agencies from around the country, mayors, business and labor leaders, environmentalists, and transit riders--virtually all of the stakeholders in this important matter--and including economic development experts, a very important dimension of this, to which I will refer again shortly.

Virtually all of the witnesses we heard agreed that the investment that had been made under TEA-21--in other words, the predecessor legislation to what we are now considering in the Senate--contributed to a renaissance for transit in this country. In fact, transit has experienced the highest percentage of ridership growth among all modes of surface transportation, growing almost 30 percent between 1993 and 2001.

We also heard testimony about the other benefits of transit. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified that $1 billion of capital investment in transit creates almost 50,000 jobs. Moreover, the economic development benefits of transit are becoming more and more apparent as new systems come into service. For example, we heard testimony from one of the county commissioners in Dallas that over $1 billion had been invested in private development along Dallas's existing and future light rail lines, raising nearby property values and supporting thousands of jobs.

We heard from a representative of BellSouth that his company decided to relocate almost 10,000 employees from scattered sites in suburban Atlanta to three downtown buildings near the MARTA rail stations because, as he put it, transit ``saves employees time. It saves employees money. It saves wear and tear on the employees' spirit.''

Transit benefits the economy in other ways as well. For example, transit investments in one community can have repercussions in many areas around the country. The president of the American Public Transportation Association, Bill Millar, who has testified before the Senate on a number of occasions and has brought extraordinary leadership to this effort, pointed out that when one locality builds a rail system or develops its bus system, much of that construction or the assembly of those buses may well be done in a different jurisdiction. So one has to keep in mind when considering the economic benefits, it is not just the area that is upgrading the transit system that is getting the money, but that area in turn is spending its money on a whole range of supplies and services which take place elsewhere in the country. When Texas cities buy buses, for example, it may be a company in Colorado that is producing the buses. As Mr. Millar said, ``While the Federal money would appear to be going one place, the impact of that money tends to go very far and wide.''

Of course, transit is about more than our economic life. It is also about our quality of life. During our hearings, we heard a great deal about the importance of transit to our senior citizens, our young people, the disabled, and others who rely on transit for their daily mobility needs. There is a population out there, significant in number, whose mobility depends on transit systems. They do not have the alternative of the automobile.

Several of our witnesses observed that the increased investment in transit and paratransit services under TEA-21, the previous legislation, provided the crucial link between home and a job, school, or a doctor's office, for millions of people who might not otherwise have been able to participate fully in the life of their community.

Further, we saw after September 11 how transit can be an important lifeline in other respects, as well. We had very moving testimony during our hearings about the efforts made by transit operators on that day to move tens of thousands of people quickly and safely out of our city centers.

As a result of transit's many benefits, the demand for transit is continuing to increase all across the Nation. States that for a long time had no interest in transit now have a very keen interest in transit. I say to the Presiding Officer, the State of Nevada is developing major transit in the Las Vegas area, for example, and it is made necessary by the population explosion which has taken place in that State over recent decades. Small towns, rural areas, suburban jurisdictions, large cities, all are struggling to keep up with the need to provide safe and reliable transit service for their citizens.

The Department of Transportation has estimated that nationally communities will need $14 billion per year in capital investment simply to maintain the condition and performance of their transit systems, let alone what is necessary to improve conditions and service. If we do not make this investment today, we will be left with deteriorating infrastructure and worsening congestion tomorrow and that, of course, would be a depressing influence on our economy and would undermine our economic strength and vitality.

The legislation before the Senate authorizes $56.5 billion in transit investment over the next 6 years. This is the amount approved by the Senate during consideration of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution and represents a substantial increase over TEA-21. Most experts conclude it is not adequate to address all the transit needs of the Nation, but it does represent a significant step forward in our efforts to improve our citizens' mobility and strengthen our national economy through investments in our transportation infrastructure.

The legislation maintains a feature of both ISTEA and TEA-21, the two previous surface transportation acts, namely, parity between the transit program and the highway program so that they will be able to move ahead in a parallel and comparable fashion. We are appreciative of our colleagues on other committees for recognizing the importance of that proposition.

Moreover, the legislation maintains the existing 80% Federal match on new starts transit projects. Again, that maintains the parallelism that has existed between highways and transit so that the decision being made at the local level is not weighted in one direction or the other because of the match that is required in order to move forward with the transportation infrastructure. Mayor McCrory of Charlotte, North Carolina, made this point at one of our hearings when he observed that ``there's a strong need to keep the program 80-20, as we do for other forms of transportation, including roads. That does send a strong message that transit is as important as our road network.''

The proposal brought forward by Chairman Shelby provides for growth in both the urban and rural formula program, with added emphasis placed on the rural program. The committee was sensitive to the needs of the rural areas of our country, and the rural program will see significant growth in order to help States with large rural areas provide the services their residents need.

The bill also increases the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program. This funding is very important to helping cities with older rail systems, which in some cases were built almost a century ago, make the investments needed to preserve those highly successful systems, which move millions of people every working day.

The New Starts program, which helps communities make their first major investment in transit as well as expand

existing systems, also grows under this bill. The New Starts program will allow communities to address their growing needs with transit investment and gain the benefits of transit that exist elsewhere in the country.

The bill makes a significant change in the New Starts program by allowing New Starts funding to be used for the first time to fund transit projects that do not operate along a fixed guideway, as long as the project is seeking less than $75 million in Federal funds. There are a few projects of this type currently operating the Nation, and I hope to work with the Federal Transit Administration to ensure that the FTA develops an appropriate quantitative methodology for evaluating the costs and benefits of such projects, particularly as they relate to land use and economic development impacts. As we begin to experiment with different forms of transit service, we must be careful not to adversely impact FTA's highly competitive and successful process for moving projects through the New Starts program.

While the bill preserves the general structure of TEA-21, several new formulas are included to target transit funds more directly to those states and cities with extraordinary transportation needs. The bill includes a new Growth and Density Formula: the growth portion will distribute funds to all states based on their expected future population, and the density portion will provide funding to those states whose populations are above a certain density threshold. The bill also includes an incentive tier to reward small transit-intensive cities--those cities with a population between 50,000 and 200,000 which provide higher-than-average amounts of transit service. The funds distributed under these new formulas will help communities address their unique transportation needs.

So there is an effort in this legislation to recognize the various types of transit needs across the Nation. Of course, as you do any formula, no one gets as much as they would like to get, but you work within certain constraints. Given the framework within which the committee had to work, I think we have responded fairly and rationally to the needs that have been expressed to us. We have a new growth and density formula in this legislation. We make some changes in the fixed guideway program to give a little more discretion for smaller projects. But, all in all, I think this is a balanced package. I commend it to my colleagues, and of course I am happy to discuss with any of them any questions they may have.

I want to highlight just a few more of the bill's provisions. The bill includes a requirement that metropolitan planning organizations develop a public participation plan to ensure that public transportation employees, affected community members, users of public transportation, freight shippers, private sector providers--all the interested parties concerned about the transportation infrastructure-- have an opportunity to participate in the transportation plan approval process. Transportation investments are among the most important decisions made at the local level. I firmly believe all interested parties should have an opportunity to contribute to this process. Our transportation infrastructure is central to making our economy, and indeed our society in a broader sense, work day to day. That is why this is such a critical and important piece of legislation.

I am pleased that the legislation includes a new transit in parks program to help national parks and other public lands find alternative transportation solutions to the traffic problems they are now facing. This is a program the administration supports, and it has had very strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It is an effort to address the problem, made manifest in certain of our Western national parks, of the overcrowding that has come with increased visitation. You have people who wait in line all day long to get into Yosemite, for example. They get to the entrance and they cannot get in, because the park's roads and parking lots are at capacity. It is a very serious problem.

TEA-21 required the Department of Transportation to conduct a study of alternative transportation needs in our national parks and other public lands, and that study confirmed that the parks are ready and willing to develop transit alternatives. This legislation will help the parks make investments in traditional public transit, such as shuttle buses or trolleys, or other types of public transportation appropriate to the park setting, such as waterborne transportation or bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

I also want to note that the bill makes a number of modifications to section 5333(b), known as section 13(c), the transit employee labor protections. These provisions were the result of extended discussions between the transit labor unions and members of the committee who were concerned about the impact of 13(c) on the transit program. I note that section 13(c) has been a part of every transit bill since 1964, providing crucial collective bargaining and job right protections. It has served to unify a broad coalition of transit industry and employee representatives to form a unique partnership which has worked together to expand the Federal transit program to what it is today: an unequivocal success. I want to mention one modification which addresses the concerns of members regarding issues arising when one private contractor replaces another private contractor through competitive bidding. Such rights were addressed in the Department of Labor's Las Vegas decision dated September 21, 1994, as amplified by letter dated November 7, 1994. This legislation includes language in section 13(c) to ensure that the Department of Labor's decisions involving so-called ``contractor to contractor rights'' are governed by the standards set forth in the Department's Las Vegas rulings, without otherwise affecting employee rights under section 13(c). In addition, I note that the changes to section 13(c) are not intended to impact the level of protections covering freight rail employees existing on the date immediately preceding enactment of this act.

There are a number of other provisions in the legislation that modify previous aspects of the transit programs, but for the most part the committee's intention was not to enact major changes to a program that has worked well.

For example, while the bill enhances the role of private-sector transit providers in several ways, it was not intended to change the long-standing congressional policy that decisions involving the choice between public and private transit operators should be left to local authorities who are better equipped to make local transportation decisions, and the Federal Government should remain neutral with respect to such local decision-making. In addition, while the definition of public transportation is modified slightly in the bill, the intent is to clarify, rather than change, the universe of modes and services encompassed by that definition.

And as I indicated earlier, some of the changes with respect to the formula seek to be sensitive to ensuring that all parts of the country can participate in the transit programs. But we have tried to essentially maintain most of the previous arrangements which have worked so successfully.

I conclude by saying that this amendment provides essential support to our local and State partners in their efforts to combat congestion and pollution and to ensure that their citizens can access safe and reliable transit services. That is why the bill is strongly supported by a number of associations representing local officials, transit providers, environmental groups, and others.

In a letter received by the committee yesterday, the American Public Transportation Association stated:

We support your commitment to retain the overall structure

of the federal transit program and the decision to increase

federal investment in transit infrastructure. This increased

investment will not only improve and modernize the nation's

transportation system, but it will also create and sustain

millions of badly needed jobs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter, along with other letters of support, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, I will close by saying, as these letters demonstrate, the legislation we are considering today is vitally important to

keep America moving forward in the 21st century. It is no exaggeration to say this is essential legislation for the future strength and vitality of our economy and of our society. I very strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation that has been brought forward from the Banking Committee, as I said, on a unanimous vote in a markup yesterday morning.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Community Transportation

Association,

February 5, 2004.

Hon. Richard Shelby,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban

Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,

Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing

and Urban Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Shelby and Sarbanes: We'd like to take this

opportunity on behalf of our more than 7,000 members

providing community and public transportation services around

the nation, as well as the millions of Americans who rely on

these services every day, to commend you for your leadership

in the creation of the Federal Public Transportation Act of

2004.

This groundbreaking legislation builds the kind of 21st

century transportation network our nation needs. We're

pleased that it recognizes the real character of public

transportation and invests in transit for communities of all

sizes and locations. At long last, this bill begins to

adequately address the transportation needs of rural

Americans and of senior citizens.

Much of the success we've enjoyed in the past six years in

community and public transportation was based upon the

innovative guarantees and protections for transit financing

made by the federal government in TEA-21. Continuing these

guarantees in this important legislation is essential.

There's an old proverb that says the journey of a thousand

miles begins with a single step. This bill is a giant step

toward building the foundation for America's transportation

future.

We're grateful. Thank you on behalf of our members, and on

behalf of the American people.

Sincerely,

Dale J. Marsico,

CCTM, Executive Director.

Mr. President, I concur with the remarks made by Chairman Shelby. I think they are right on point. I want to stress again to my colleagues, as I understand it, the highway bill was brought out of the Environment and Public Works Committee with an overwhelming vote, almost unanimous but not quite. I think there were two exceptions, but otherwise all members of that committee on both sides of the aisle were supportive of this legislation.

The transit part that is being offered as a title or an amendment to the highway bill came out of the Banking Committee with a unanimous vote. I think this reflects the fact that in both venues, both forums, a major effort was made over a sustained period of time to address the problems Members confronted and to try to develop a formula, an allocation, and other provisions of the legislation that would be responsive to their needs.

So I say to my colleagues, this is legislation that has been very carefully developed. It has been worked over and over and I think it is a very good product. I think it has struck a very good balance. I think it contains within it a vision for the country.

There is a clamor across the country for this legislation on the part of the public and on the part of all of the stakeholders who deal with these issues. State governments, local governments, the various highway and transit groups, business interests, labor interests, are all strongly supportive of this legislation.

The reason they are so strongly supportive is because they recognize this legislation is critical to moving the Nation ahead. It is essential for the economy. It is essential for enhancing the quality of life. People are spending hours trying to get to and from work and we need to help address that issue. Seniors, young people, and the disabled need these various forms of transportation in order to live their lives. I strongly commend this legislation to my colleagues. A great deal of work has gone into it by many Members of this body. I think it is very important that we move this legislation forward and over the next few days to come, I hope we will be able to accomplish that and put into place this extremely important legislation.

Actually, in one of the statements of the majority leader he indicated he

thought this might well be the most important legislation to be considered by this body in this session of the Congress. I do not think that is an overstatement and I again commend this legislation to my colleagues. I thank Chairman Shelby for the very productive, positive, and cooperative way in which he worked on this legislation and I join with him in commending Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords for the very fine work that was done in the Environment and Public Works Committee and Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their efforts in the Finance Committee that, in effect, developed a full package that will make this legislation work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I cannot support the Medicare prescription drug conference report before us. I share in the disappointment of the many seniors, advocacy groups, providers, and colleagues in Congress who have fought so long to provide Medicare beneficiaries with prescription drug coverage. Drug coverage should be an integral part of any meaningful health care insurance and it is certain that if Medicare were created today, no one would imagine excluding drug coverage. Unfortunately, the bill before us now has wasted an opportunity to give Medicare beneficiaries the affordable and comprehensive coverage they deserve. The conference report provides inadequate coverage while at the same time undermining Medicare, a program that has served our seniors for over 37 years.

Under this bill, Medicare beneficiaries will pay an estimated premium of $35 per month although that premium level is not guaranteed and it could be higher. After meeting a $250 annual deductible, 75 percent of a beneficiary's drug costs are covered up to $2,250. A beneficiary receives no coverage for drug costs between $2,251 and $3,600, though they are still required to continue paying monthly premiums during this coverage gap. Once drug costs exceed $3,600, the drug plan would cover 95 percent of a Medicare beneficiary's drug expenses. This drug benefit is insufficient and much less than many retirees receive through existing coverage.

Those opposed to offering a more substantial prescription drug benefit claimed there are insufficient resources to pay for it. This argument comes from the very people who have pushed through the Congress tax-cut programs that tilt heavily in favor of the wealthy. Over the last several years, the administration has squandered a surplus and left the Nation facing a deficit already approaching half a trillion dollars. These valuable resources could have been used to provide our Nation's seniors the real drug coverage they deserve.

During consideration of the Senate bill, we missed an opportunity to provide Medicare beneficiaries with a substantial, reliable and straightforward prescription drug benefit. I cosponsored and voted for an amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. His alternative would have provided a Medicare-delivered drug benefit that would have allowed the Medicare program to employ negotiating strategies used by the Veterans

Administration--VA--and other government entities to bring down drug prices. Senator Durbin's plan would have begun as soon as practicable, unlike this legislation that leaves beneficiaries waiting until 2006 for the drug benefit to begin.

Under Senator Durbin's plan, seniors would have not paid a deductible, would have paid 30 percent of costs, and would have no coverage gap. Once drug costs reach $5,000, 90 percent of their costs would be covered. In addition, employer contributions would count toward out-of-pocket limits so there would be much less risk of employers dropping retiree coverage. This was the proposal we should be acting on today.

As I emphasized during debate on the conference report, this bill contains a number of provisions that would undermine Medicare. For the first time in history, Medicare beneficiaries will pay more for their Part B premiums based on their income, thereby eroding the universal nature of the program. Medicare enjoys widespread support since everyone pays the same monthly premium for the same service, thereby giving us a social insurance program in which everyone has an equal stake.

The bill before us does not deal effectively with the rising costs of drugs. This legislation does not allow the Federal government to bring its weight to bear to lower drug costs. Medicare is not allowed to bargain on behalf of the millions of beneficiaries who would receive drug benefits. We know that drugs purchased through the VA program cost substantially less than those purchased at retail value. Furthermore, under this bill drug reimportation is completely at the discretion of the Administration. This is the same Administration that has repeatedly expressed its opposition against drug reimportation even if safeguards can be taken to ensure the safety of the reimported drugs.

This bill has the serious potential to cause a number of retirees to lose existing employer-sponsored prescription drug coverage. CBO estimates that 2.7 million retirees would lose existing coverage. This is an unacceptable consequence of legislation that is supposed to make life better for seniors. This serious deficiency has prompted many constituents to call my office to express concern about this bill.

Congress began this debate focused on the best way to provide Medicare beneficiaries drug coverage and efforts to keep those drugs affordable. We now have legislation before us in which the drug benefit appears to be an afterthought. I think a deeply troubling aspect of the bill is that it takes steps toward privatizing Medicare. This legislation relies on private plans to deliver the drug benefit; seniors could be forced to shift from plan-to-plan, year-to-year as they did when Medicare+Choice HMOs pulled out of the Medicare program a few years ago. In my own State of Maryland, insurance companies left the Medicare program, abandoning more than 100,000 seniors.

In addition, the bill includes a six-year premium-support ``demonstration project,'' which would be established in six metropolitan areas. Medicare recipients in these areas would choose between traditional Medicare and private health plans; if the cost of the selected form of coverage exceeded a benchmark level set for the area, the individual pays increased premiums to cover the difference. This bill also contains $12 billion in subsidies for private plans. This funding gives private plans an unfair advantage by enabling them to provide benefits that traditional Medicare does not cover. If private plans were more efficient than Medicare, they would not need this money to compete. This $12 billion should have been used to improve the drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, not to underwrite the private plans.

The inclusion of tax savings accounts to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses further underscores how far the focus of the bill has strayed from providing Medicare beneficiaries prescription drug coverage. The bill makes health savings accounts that are currently a limited demonstration project universally available. These accounts could be used with high-deductible health policies giving healthy, affluent workers a strong incentive to opt out of comprehensive health insurance plans in favor of the new accounts. If large numbers of these workers opt out of comprehensive plans, the pool of people left in comprehensive plans would be older and sicker, causing premiums for comprehensive insurance to rise significantly.

I have long been a strong supporter of providing older Americans and disabled individuals who rely on Medicare an affordable, comprehensive, reliable and voluntary prescription drug benefit. However, I want to ensure we do so in a way that does not worsen the situation in which many seniors find themselves as they face rapidly rising drug costs. As we consider proposals to expand our Nation's major health entitlement programs, it is appropriate to follow a guiding principle in the practice of medicine--do no harm. Our seniors deserve a drug benefit that is a real improvement, not a complex experiment that may cause more trouble than it's worth. We must not enact a law intended to help that might eventually harm millions. The American people deserve better.