Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment offered by Senators Graham, Dorgan, Stabenow, and others that would increase funding in the budget resolution by $220 billion for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, providing a total of $620 billion for a comprehensive benefit. This amendment would also reduce the tax cut by nearly $400 billion and reduce the deficit by $250 billion.

According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 38 percent of seniors and disabled Americans have no prescription drug coverage whatsoever. Instead of finding ways to help these individuals and improve access to care for those with coverage, President Bush has proposed pushing Medicare beneficiaries into private health plans as a means of receiving drug coverage. And the level of coverage that could be provided under this scenario is questionable. Given the history of the Medicare+Choice program, many of my colleagues and I are skeptical that such a proposal would be successful. Many private insurers have withdrawn from the Medicare program or severely limited service areas in recent years. Of those who have remained, many plans have decreased prescription drug benefits and other benefits so much so that they offer little or no advantage over the traditional Medicare fee-for- service program. It is unclear how the President's proposal will avoid similar problems.

This amendment would increase funding in the budget resolution for a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program that is available to all beneficiaries. In addition, it specifies that prescription drugs should be provided on an equal basis with respect to benefit level regardless of whether beneficiaries remain in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program or enroll in a private plan like those proposed by the administration. This is consistent with the approach that the supporters of this amendment and I favor. We have been working toward legislation that would create an affordable, comprehensive, and voluntary Medicare drug benefit and lower costs for all Americans by increasing access to lower priced drugs.

It is clear that even this additional funding would not completely meet the needs of Medicare beneficiaries. A recent Congressional Budget Office estimate suggests spending for prescription drugs by and on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries would total $1.84 trillion over the next 10-year period. However, this amendment moves us much closer to meeting the needs of Medicare beneficiaries while simultaneously reducing the deficit.

Our Nation is facing serious challenges at home and abroad. And we know that challenging times often require sacrifice. We must ask ourselves who will bear the brunt of these sacrifices. Are we going to spread them evenly? Or will we force those who have worked hard to make the United States the great Nation that it is to carry an unnecessarily heavy load? I fail to see how it is appropriate, at this time, to pass a tax benefit that benefits the wealthiest Americans without providing adequate resources to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. Our older Americans and the disabled individuals who rely on Medicare deserve more than this budget resolution provides. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Graham-Dorgan-Stabenow amendment.

Will the majority leader yield?

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Do I understand correctly, from the exchange that just took place, immediately after this vote there will be an order to make statements with respect to the resolution that was passed just a short while ago?

Will the Senator yield?

I ask a question of the majority leader.

In light of the statement Senator Conrad just made, would it not be possible to have, say, an hour, after this vote, for the making of statements on the resolution unrelated to taking time away from consideration of the budget?

This is an important resolution. There are many Members who did not get a chance before the vote to make a statement. It seems to me a reasonable accommodation in light of what the ranking member of the committee has just stated.

If the Senator will yield on that point, we are, obviously, on a track to complete this budget resolution. As I understood it, the 3 hours of debate from 2 to 5 before the vote on the resolution did not come out of the time on the budget; is that correct?

All I am suggesting is given there are some additional Members who wish to speak, that we have another hour after this vote unrelated to time on the budget resolution to discuss the support for our troops resolution.

It seems to me that this is a matter of such consequence.

I was here this afternoon, in response to my colleague who raised that point. There was a very long list of people wishing to speak. There wasn't time to speak within the time that was allotted.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Will the Senator yield me a few minutes?

I appreciate that very much. In light of the discussion that was earlier held, my own view is that we should have allowed more time to talk about the resolution with respect to Iraq straight out, without mixing it into the budget resolution problem. It is obviously the issue facing the country. I think Members wanted to address it, and I do not believe it ought to be truncated. But I understand the difficult position in which the able Senator from North Dakota, who has done such an excellent job in terms of his efforts on the budget resolution, now finds himself. So I will try to limit my time in that regard. I thank the ranking member for his courtesy.

(The remarks of Mr. Sarbanes are printed in today's Record in the debate on S. Res. 95.)

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which was jurisdiction over the Federal transit program, I am pleased to join in this effort with Chairman Shelby and Senator Jack Reed, ranking member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, as well as my colleagues on the Enviroment and Public Works Committee, Senators Bond, Reid, Inhofe, and Jeffords, and my other colleagues who support this important amendment.

As has already been noted, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, known as TEA-21, will expire on September 30 of this year. This Congress will have the opportunity to craft legislation that will shape America's surface transportation system for the next decide and beyond. The decisions we make will be critically important to our Nation's future economic strength, the quality of our environment, and our national security. Therefore, as we consider this budget resolution, and engage in the debate about how best to use our limited Federal resources, I believe it is appropriate to take a few moments to consider what is contained in this budget resolution, what this amendment seeks to accomplish, and the importance of our surface transportation system for America's future.

Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us does not come close to making the necessary investment in surface transportation. Instead, the budget as written would actually cut the highway program next year, grow funding somewhat the following year, and then flat-line the program for the remainder of the authorization period. The budget's numbers for transit call for annual increases below the President's projected rate of inflation, not to mention the projected ridership growth. This budget calls for only $206 billion for highways and $46 billion for transit over the next 6 years, far less than what is needed. I am deeply concerned that this budget would move us backward, not forward, in our efforts to meet the mobility needs of the Nation.

This amendment would grow these programs by $49 billion and $10.5 billion respectively over what is included in the budget resolution, increasing investment in our highway program to $255 billion over the next 6 years, and our transit program to $56.5 billion. By growing our investment, we will not only help to preserve and maintain the systems that we have in place, we will begin to make progress toward improvement. Further, by the end of the next reauthorization cycle, surface transportation investment will reach its goal of a 4 to 1 balance between highways and transit. This goal was established in TEA- 21, and this amendment reaffirms that decision.

The transportation needs of this Nation are significant, as more and more communities find themselves confronting the problems of traffic congestion and delay. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in the year 2000, Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $67.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. As these figures show, congestion has a real economic cost to the nation, in addition to the psychological and social costs of spending hours each day sitting in traffic. It is clear that we must increase the capacity of our transportation infrastructure to handle the growing demands for mobility of both people and goods to keep our economy moving.

Investment in our transportation infrastructure has other economic benefits as well. According to the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce, each $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs. At a time when our economy is struggling, investing in transportation is one of the smartest actions that government can take. Increased investment creates jobs today and leads to economic growth tomorrow.

Let me take a few moments to focus on the transit program, which I have a particular interest in as the ranking member of the Banking Committee. During the last Congress, that Committee, along with the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, chaired by my colleague Senator Reed, held a series of eight hearings to begin laying the groundwork for the reauthorization. What those hearings clearly demonstrated is that investing in transportation, particularly public transportation, pays off in terms of economic, environmental, and mobility benefits for our nation.

TEA-21's increased investment in transit stimulated a surge in transit ridership. As Federal Transit Administrator Jennifer Dorn testified last April: ``Transit has experienced the highest percentage of ridership growth among all modes of surface transportation, growing over 28 percent between 1993 and 2001.''

Of course, the benefits of TEA-21's investment are broader than increased ridership. The economic development impact of transit is becoming more and more apparent as new systems have come into service under TEA-21. For example, the Banking Committee heard testimony that over $1 billion has been invested in private development along Dallas's existing and future light rail lines, raising nearby property values and supporting thousands of jobs. We learned that BellSouth relocated almost ten thousand employees from scattered sites in suburban Atlanta to three downtown buildings near MARTA rail stations, in part because, in the words of BellSouth Vice President Herschel Abbott, commuting by transit ``saves employees time. It saves employees money. It saves wear and tear on the employees' spirit.'' And that has real returns for their employer.

Transit is about more than our economic life; it is also about our quality of life. During the Committee's hearings, we heard a great deal about the importance of transit to our senior citizens, young people, the disabled, and others who rely on transit for their daily mobility needs. Several of our witnesses observed that the increased investment in transit and paratransit services under TEA-21 has provided the crucial link between home and a job, a school, or a doctor's office, for millions of people who might otherwise have been unable to participate fully in the life of their communities.

And transit can be a lifetime in other ways as well, as we discovered on September 11, 2001. We heard testimony during our hearings about the efforts made by transit operators on that day to move thousands of people quickly and safely out of city centers. As more and more Americans are using public transportation, it is clear that transit must be a vital component of any city's evacuation plan.

While September 11 showed the importance of transit in responding to an emergency, it also raised our awareness of the unique challenges transit faces in the safety and security area, as several witnesses discussed. Transit agencies are taking great pains to improve the security of their systems, but these efforts are not without cost.

It is clear to me that we will have to greatly increase Federal support for transportation to help local communities make the investments in infrastructure and system preservation that will be required to move America into the 21st century. The Department of Transportation has identified $14 billion per year in capital needs simply to maintain the conditions and performance of our transit systems--$20 billion is needed to improve conditions and performance. Other estimates show an even greater need. A report by the Nation's State transportation officials estimated that an annual investment of $19 billion is needed just to maintain our transit systems at their current levels, and $44 billion would be needed to improve conditions and performance. According to the same study, almost $100 billion is needed annually just to maintain the current condition of our nation's roads and bridges. Failure to make the needed investment will result in the continued deterioration of our existing infrastructure.

As we debate the priorities of this Nation in the context of this Budget Resolution, I urge my colleagues to be mindful of a comment that Dr. Beverly Scott, then General Manager of the Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority, made before the Banking Committee on April 25, 2002, regarding the reauthorization of TEA-21. Dr. Scott said: ``As Americans, mobility is one of the greatest and most precious freedoms that we enjoy. This basic cornerstone of American life--who can or cannot get from place to place, how we plan and conduct our daily lives, the choices we make about what we do, and even more importantly, what we can do--are hanging in the balance.'' That is what is at stake here. This Congress will shape the future of transportation in American, which will have a very real impact on every one of our citizens. Passage of this amendment is essential if we are to keep America moving. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment introduced by Senator Boxer, which would strike the provisions contained in the pending Budget Resolution that would allow for the commencement of oil exploration and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. I am deeply concerned about the irreparable damage these actions would have on this unique and beautiful wilderness.

A mere 6 days ago, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution commemorating the Centennial Anniversary of the Wildlife Refuge System, established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 with the designation of the Pelican Island Reservation on the eastern coast of Florida. According to last

week's resolution, which I cosponsored, the Senate ``reaffirms its commitment to continued support for the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the conservation of our Nation's rich natural heritage.'' The language contained in the pending Budget Resolution, which would lead to the disturbance of one of the largest and most pristine components of the Wildlife Refuge System, not only falls far short of this reaffirmation, but explicitly breaks the commitment laid out by President Roosevelt a century ago.

The principal mission of the Wildlife Refuge System, in President Roosevelt's own words, is ``keeping for our children's children as a priceless heritage, all of the delicate beauty of the lesser and burly majesty of the mightier forms of wildlife. . . .'' Moreover, Roosevelt declared that this mission is founded on the basic principle that ``wild beasts and birds are by right not the property merely of the people who are alive today, but the property of unborn generations, whose belongings we have no right to squander.'' The environmental damage we have seen throughout the country over the past 100 years has strengthened and reaffirmed President Roosevelt's wise foresight in preserving certain areas of beauty and natural significance for present and future generations.

Proponents of drilling in ANWR have claimed that oil exploration activities on the Refuge's fragile coastal plain will result in virtually undetectable environmental impact. However, an extensive, congressionally mandated report released earlier this month by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science and Engineering makes clear that drilling in ANWR will result in significant damage to the region. According to the report, which examined the cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration and production on Alaska's North Slope over the past three decades, ``[r]oads, pads, pipelines, seismic-vehicle tracks, and transmission lines; air, ground, and vessel traffic; drilling activities; landfills, housing, processing facilities, and other industrial infrastructure have compromised wild-land and scenic values over large areas. . . .'' Moreover, ``climate changes during the past several decades on the North Slope have been unusually rapid,'' and ``noise from exploratory drilling and marine seismic exploration'' have disrupted migratory patterns and severely impeded reproductive rates of bowhead whales, caribou, native birds, and other species.

In addition to the major environmental impact that would likely affect ANWR should it be opened for oil and gas exploration, the resulting energy supply would do little to address our growing energy needs. Indeed, ANWR represents only five percent of Alaska's North Slope the remaining ninety-five percent of the North Slope is currently open to oil and gas exploration and production. According to a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, the total amount of oil that could be harvested from ANWR would roughly equal the amount of oil consumed by Americans in a 6-month period. Finally, this relatively small supply of oil would do even less to address our immediate energy needs. A 2001 report published by the Congressional Research Service has estimated that American consumers would not begin to benefit from oil recovered from ANWR for at least 10 years.

If we truly want to address the challenge of our country's overwhelming dependence on foreign oil, causing irreparable damage to an area of exquisite beauty in exchange for a small supply of oil and gas is not the manner in which we should proceed. It is my strongly- held belief that we must aggressively pursue sources of renewable energy, as well as turn our focus away from increased production, and toward greater conservation.

Mr. President, attempts to open ANWR to oil and gas exploration are reckless and shortsighted. I urge my colleagues to honor President Theodore Roosevelt's vision by joining me in supporting Senator Boxer's amendment to preserve the integrity and beauty of ANWR.

Mr. President, I express my strong support for the amendment offered by Senators Murray and Kennedy to increase funds for the No Child Left Behind Act by $8.9 billion, fully funding this critical legislation. The amendment also includes $8.9 billion for deficit reduction. Both the education and deficit reduction funding are taken from the dividend tax cut. It is imperative that Congress sends a strong message in support of education that is accompanied by equally strong funding.

The budget resolution we consider today fails to provide sufficient funding for education programs at all levels. Despite the Administration rhetoric that places great importance on improving educational opportunities for all Americans, President Bush's budget underfunds a variety of programs--early childhood education, elementary education, vocational education, and higher education--that are especially important to families given the weak economy.

States are struggling with budget shortfalls, rising student enrollment, and an increasing number of students with limited English proficiency. At the same time, States are working to meet the new requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because I agreed with its principles--all public school children should be able to achieve and all schools should be held accountable when their students fail to do so. I believed the President when he said education would be a priority. But now we face a budget that does not make education a priority. Instead, we are asked to support a budget that somehow finds the money to provide a tax cut for the wealthiest individuals, but cannot do so for the education of our Nation's children.

This budget provides only a 2 percent overall increase for education programs, and some increases such as those for both Title I and IDEA, are largely paid for with cuts to other valuable education programs. Funding for the No Child Left Behind Act is cut by $700 million below fiscal year 2003 levels. It shortchanges Title I funding by $5.8 billion below the authorized level. Title I could reach only 40 percent of eligible low-income children at this level. This budget also cuts funding for teacher quality programs, after school programs, and eliminates 46 education initiatives.

The No Child Left Behind Act places a variety of new requirements on States and local school districts, including annual standardized testing and increased teacher certification. While we can expect our educators to do all within their power to improve our schools, we cannot expect this landmark legislation to be effective if they are not given the resources to implement these programs. If this amendment passes, over 2 million additional needy children will be served by Title I, after school opportunities would be extended to an additional 1.3 million latchkey kids, and 50,000 new teachers could become fully qualified.

I find it unconscionable that we can consider a tax cut aimed at the wealthiest Americans while purporting to be unable to adequately fund education programs. Now is the time to move beyond the rhetoric and show teachers, parents and students that we are sincere in our efforts to help them. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Murray- Kennedy amendment.

Will the chairman yield on that very point?

When does the chairman intend to vote on the amendments that are going to be offered and considered this evening?

Presumably, then, if it is tomorrow afternoon, there would be added to the list other amendments that will be offered tomorrow morning, is that the procedure?

At most.

Mr. President, I intend to speak to an amendment which will be offered tomorrow. I take this approach because I am joined in sponsoring this amendment by Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Bob Graham of Florida. And they will, presumably, be able to address the amendment as well on that occasion.

The amendment that we will offer will boost Federal funding for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds from the level that is recommended in the budget resolution, which is $2.2 billion, to $5.2 billion; $3.2 billion of this for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $2 billion for the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

Regrettably, the President's budget for fiscal 2004 and the budget resolution severely shortchange 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, equally split. The budget resolution recommends a somewhat higher figure, a little over $2 billion for both funds, but that is still far short of what is needed.

Despite 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 sewage systems, urban storm water, and other sources continue to pose serious threats to our Nation's waters, endangering public health and both the fishing and recreational industries.

Of course, as we all realize, population growth and development are placing additional stress on the Nation's water infrastructure and our ability to make sustainable gains in water quality.

Across the Nation, our wastewater and drinking water systems are aging. And, 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. Recent EPA modeling indicates that municipal wastewater treatment facilities in my own State will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries to health.

In April of 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network, a broad coalition of locally elected officials, drinking water and wastewater service providers, State environmental and health administrators, engineers, and environmentalists released a report, ``Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century.'' This 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 in the Safe Drinking Water Act. And all of the studies have substantiated this gap. For example, in May of 2002--less than a year ago--the Congressional Budget Office released a report showing very large gaps for clean water needs and drinking water needs over the next 20 years.

The need for additional investment in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure is clearly documented. But States, localities, and private sources cannot meet the funding gap alone. Local communities already pay almost 90 percent of the total cost, or about $60 billion a year, to build, operate, and maintain their drinking water and wastewater systems.

But as Administrator Whitman recently pointed out:

The magnitude of the challenge America faces is clearly

beyond the ability of any one entity to address.

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.

Clearly, water pollution is an interstate problem that requires, in part, a Federal response. In our own case, in Maryland, water flows into the Chesapeake Bay from six States. Other States need to make investments as well in order to clean up the watershed. It is vital that the Federal Government maintain a strong partnership with States and local governments in order to address this major environmental challenge.

The increases provided for in this amendment are the first step necessary to deal with this pressing problem. It represents an investment in the health of Americans and a clean environment, and is, I believe, an investment that will pay substantial dividends.

Wastewater treatment plants not only prevent billions of tons of pollutants from reaching our rivers, lakes, streams, and coasts, they also help prevent waterborne diseases and make waters safe for swimming and fishing. In fact, the Water Infrastructure Network says that clean water supports $50 billion a year in the water-based recreation industry, at least $300 billion a year in coastal tourism, $45 billion annually in commercial fishing and shellfishing, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year in basic manufacturing that relies on clean water.

According to the Water Infrastructure Network, clean rivers, lakes, and coastlines attract investment in local communities and increase land values on or near the water, and that, in turn, creates jobs, adds to the tax base, and improves revenues for local, State, and Federal governments. 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 water systems reduce sickness and related health care costs. They reduce absenteeism in the workforce. And they, obviously, add to our quality of life.

Investment in the infrastructure we are talking about here--sewer and water improvements--would also create substantial numbers of jobs through construction. It would provide an impetus to our economy at a time when it needs an impetus.

There is strong support for increased investment in infrastructure. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have taken a lead on this issue over the years.

The case for the amendment is compelling. Maintaining clean, safe water remains one of our leading national challenges. This budget resolution should not and need not come at the expense of human health or a clean environment. I strongly urge my colleagues, when the amendment is presented, to support it and to begin to address this large funding gap that looms into the future with respect to this very important aspect of our domestic agenda. This is both good environmental policy and good economic policy. Support for this amendment will offer an opportunity to continue to make progress on clean water and safe drinking water. I commend the amendment to my colleagues when it is brought before them at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, I have a number of letters from organizations in support of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print them in the Record.

I am happy to yield.

The amendment has another $3 billion for these purposes, both for the Clean Water and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. These are the moneys that go into the State Revolving Funds. Then, of course, they have to be matched by the States and often the localities. So the amount of money is leveraged significantly beyond what the Federal contribution would be.

Another $3 billion, that is right.

The bill has room in it for $726 billion worth of tax cuts. Obviously, this raises the question of priorities. Is it more important to give these particular tax cuts, which, of course, I believe strongly are heavily weighted towards the wealthy, as opposed to making some investment in programs of this sort? We have to connect the two. I am willing to look at doing reasonable tax cuts, but I think what is in the resolution, as the chairman knows from my statements in committee, is far too excessive. If it were up to me, I would reduce that amount. I would use a limited portion of it to fund some of these priority programs. I would use the remainder of it to hold down the deficit so we are not projecting such large deficits out into the future.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing the Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2003. This measure is another important step forward in our efforts to make transit services more accessible and improve the quality of life for commuters throughout the Nation.

All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2000, Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the Nation of $67.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel, and the problem is growing. One way in which Federal, State, and local governments are responding to this problem is by promoting greater use of transit as a commuting option. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that last year, Americans took over 9.5 billion trips on transit, the highest level in more than 40 years. But we need to do more to encourage people to get out of their cars and onto public transportation.

The Internal Revenue Code currently allows employers to provide a tax-free transit benefit to their employees. Under this ``Commuter Choice'' program, employers can set aside up to $100 per month of an employee's pre-tax income to pay for the cost of commuting by public transportation or vanpool. Alternatively, an employer can choose to offer the same amount as a tax-free benefit in addition to an employee's salary. This program is designed to encourage Americans to leave their cars behind when commuting to work.

By all accounts, this program is working. In the Washington area, for example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority estimates that over 200,000 commuters take advantage of transit pass programs offered by their employers. That means fewer cars on our congested streets and highways.

Employees of the federal government account for a large percentage of those benefitting from this program in the

Washington area. Under an Executive Order, all Federal agencies in the National Capital Region, which includes Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, as well as several counties in Northern Virginia, are required to offer this transit benefit to their employees. The Commuter Choice program is now being used by an estimated 130,000 Washington-area Federal employees who are choosing to take transit to work.

However, despite the success of the Commuter Choice program, our tax laws still reflect a bias toward driving. The Internal Revenue Code allows employers to offer a tax-free parking benefit to their employees of up to $190 per month. The striking disparity between the amount allowed for parking--$190 per month--and the amount allowed for transit--$100 per month--undermines our commitment to supporting public transportation use.

The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would address this discrepancy by raising the maximum monthly transit benefit to $190, equal to the parking benefit, and providing that the benefits will be adjusted upward together in future years. The Federal Government should not reward those who drive to work more richly than those who take public transportation. Indeed, since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Federal transportation policy has endeavored to create a level playing field between highways and transit, favoring neither mode above the other. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would ensure that our tax laws reflect this balanced approach.

In addition, the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remedy another inconsistency in current law. Private-sector employers can offer their employees the transit benefit in tandem with the parking benefit, to help employees pay for the costs of parking at transit facilities, commuter rail stations, or other locations which serve public transportation or vanpool commuters. However, under current law, Federal agencies cannot offer a parking benefit to their employees who use park-and-ride lots or other remote parking locations. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remove this restriction, allowing Federal employees access to the same benefits enjoyed by their private-sector counterparts.

The Washington Metropolitan Region is home to thousands of Federal employees. It is also one of the Nation's most highly congested areas, ranking fourth in per capita congestion. This area has the third longest average commute time in the country. It is clearly in our interest to support programs which encourage Federal employees to make greater use of public transportation for their commuting needs.

The simple change made by the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would provide a significant benefit to those Federal employees whose commute to work includes parking at a transit facility. For example, a commuter who rides the Metrorail to work and parks at the Rockville park-and- ride lot pays about $45 monthly for parking, on top of the cost of riding the train. A private-sector employee whose employer provides the parking benefit in addition to salary could receive $540 a year tax free to help pay these parking costs. Federal government employees should be allowed the same benefit.

I support the Commuter Benefits Equity Act because it creates parity--parity in the tax code between the parking and transit benefits, and parity for Federal employees with their private-sector counterparts. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by supporting public transportation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Commuter Benefits Equity Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing the Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2003. This measure is another important step forward in our efforts to make transit services more accessible and improve the quality of life for commuters throughout the Nation.

All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2000, Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the Nation of $67.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel, and the problem is growing. One way in which Federal, State, and local governments are responding to this problem is by promoting greater use of transit as a commuting option. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that last year, Americans took over 9.5 billion trips on transit, the highest level in more than 40 years. But we need to do more to encourage people to get out of their cars and onto public transportation.

The Internal Revenue Code currently allows employers to provide a tax-free transit benefit to their employees. Under this ``Commuter Choice'' program, employers can set aside up to $100 per month of an employee's pre-tax income to pay for the cost of commuting by public transportation or vanpool. Alternatively, an employer can choose to offer the same amount as a tax-free benefit in addition to an employee's salary. This program is designed to encourage Americans to leave their cars behind when commuting to work.

By all accounts, this program is working. In the Washington area, for example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority estimates that over 200,000 commuters take advantage of transit pass programs offered by their employers. That means fewer cars on our congested streets and highways.

Employees of the federal government account for a large percentage of those benefitting from this program in the

Washington area. Under an Executive Order, all Federal agencies in the National Capital Region, which includes Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, as well as several counties in Northern Virginia, are required to offer this transit benefit to their employees. The Commuter Choice program is now being used by an estimated 130,000 Washington-area Federal employees who are choosing to take transit to work.

However, despite the success of the Commuter Choice program, our tax laws still reflect a bias toward driving. The Internal Revenue Code allows employers to offer a tax-free parking benefit to their employees of up to $190 per month. The striking disparity between the amount allowed for parking--$190 per month--and the amount allowed for transit--$100 per month--undermines our commitment to supporting public transportation use.

The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would address this discrepancy by raising the maximum monthly transit benefit to $190, equal to the parking benefit, and providing that the benefits will be adjusted upward together in future years. The Federal Government should not reward those who drive to work more richly than those who take public transportation. Indeed, since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Federal transportation policy has endeavored to create a level playing field between highways and transit, favoring neither mode above the other. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would ensure that our tax laws reflect this balanced approach.

In addition, the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remedy another inconsistency in current law. Private-sector employers can offer their employees the transit benefit in tandem with the parking benefit, to help employees pay for the costs of parking at transit facilities, commuter rail stations, or other locations which serve public transportation or vanpool commuters. However, under current law, Federal agencies cannot offer a parking benefit to their employees who use park-and-ride lots or other remote parking locations. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remove this restriction, allowing Federal employees access to the same benefits enjoyed by their private-sector counterparts.

The Washington Metropolitan Region is home to thousands of Federal employees. It is also one of the Nation's most highly congested areas, ranking fourth in per capita congestion. This area has the third longest average commute time in the country. It is clearly in our interest to support programs which encourage Federal employees to make greater use of public transportation for their commuting needs.

The simple change made by the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would provide a significant benefit to those Federal employees whose commute to work includes parking at a transit facility. For example, a commuter who rides the Metrorail to work and parks at the Rockville park-and- ride lot pays about $45 monthly for parking, on top of the cost of riding the train. A private-sector employee whose employer provides the parking benefit in addition to salary could receive $540 a year tax free to help pay these parking costs. Federal government employees should be allowed the same benefit.

I support the Commuter Benefits Equity Act because it creates parity--parity in the tax code between the parking and transit benefits, and parity for Federal employees with their private-sector counterparts. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by supporting public transportation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Commuter Benefits Equity Act.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator have a chart that would indicate the very same information but would take the Clinton nominees in the first 2 years when the control of the Senate was in the Senator's party?

Wouldn't that be a more pertinent chart?

The Senator picked the Clinton years when his own party was in the majority.

What is happening here--my perception, at least--is that what the Senator is now complaining about is a tactic which was instituted by the other side of the aisle in the very recent past.

Now we are being told this isn't the right way to do business. But no one on that side of the aisle said it wasn't the right way to do business only a few years ago when they were doing exactly the same thing.

Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?

On the al-Qaida front, we have just captured supposedly the third ranking person in al-Qaida.

We were able to do that because of cooperation from Pakistan.

Just to underscore the Senator's point about the necessity of having the cooperation of other countries to deal with the terrorism threat.

Yet Pakistan, which has been trying to work with us, has already announced that at best they will abstain at the Security Council with respect to the coming vote because it is applying such tremendous internal pressure in Pakistan that there is some danger that this Government that has been working with us may not survive and may collapse.

Isn't that a dramatic example of the kind of problem the Senator is talking about that is being created for us around the world?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator spoke earlier about the preemption doctrine the administration has put forward.

Would the Senator agree that one of the dangers with the enunciation of that doctrine and the path the administration has now been pursuing-- which is to assert that they may take unilateral action instead of trying to work in a cooperative way through international bodies--is that it will set a precedent for other countries around the world to pursue the same course? After all, here is the predominant superpower asserting a doctrine of preemption, apparently prepared to go the unilateral path. What is then in the future to prevent some other regional power that asserts that it is confronted with some danger, from some neighbor, from pursuing the same path? Are we not in the process of setting a very dangerous precedent on the international scene in terms of maintaining international peace?

Let me ask the Senator one final question and be very clear. I take it the Senator would agree with me that none of us questions that if we were in imminent danger of being struck, we would be warranted in taking measures to protect ourselves against such dangers.

Actually, the U.N. Charter grants the right of self- defense, which would in fact entitle us to act on our own accord if confronted with an imminent danger.

I wanted to make that point because some are arguing that somehow we are giving over to someone else the decisionmaking authority, in case we are confronted with an imminent danger, to respond. That is not the case at all. So as we see this situation, that is not present. The question becomes how smart and how wise are we in exercising this unquestioned power, which we hold now on the international scene; is that not correct?

I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for the enormous contribution he has been making. He has been willing to speak the truth and raise these very important and serious questions, which I am frank to say I don't think have been given adequate attention downtown by the President or by, as the Senator characterizes it, his war cabinet. This course we are on has tremendous implications in all of the United States.

I thank the Senator. I would hope the circumstance would be that the Senator from West Virginia would have been presiding in the chair, if I may say so.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senators Warner, Lugar, Mikulski and Durbin in introducing legislation that would extend the legislative authority for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial for an additional three years. The monument to Martin Luther King, Jr., which will be built on the Mall, will honor one of this Nation's most treasured citizens. Dr. King challenged us to live by the principles set forth at this Nation's inception, and forever changed the fabric of this country.

Despite the enormous dedication of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation, Inc., additional time is necessary for the Foundation to erect a fitting tribute to Dr. King. The Commemorative Works Act currently requires that construction of the Memorial begin by November 2003. However, meeting the administrative procedures and fundraising requirements of the Act has been a very slow process.

On November 12, 1996, legislation was enacted authorizing construction of the Memorial within a seven-year period. It then took Congress another two years to pass legislation authorizing placement of the Memorial in Area I of the Capital. Then the Foundation worked with the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission for Fine Arts for over a year to locate an appropriate site for the Memorial within Area I. As a result, the Foundation was unable to select a design for the Memorial until September 2000.

This consultative process has been challenging, but it has resulted in a design for a Memorial on the Tidal Basin that will fittingly reflect the legacy of the greatest civil rights leader of our time. Initial estimates indicate that the construction costs of the Memorial alone could be as much as $60 million, and the Foundation is actively engaged in fundraising for the Memorial. However, it does not expect to have the necessary funds to receive the construction permit by the deadline of November 2003 as dictated by the Commemorative Works Act. One hundred percent of the funding must be privately financed, and the total cost of the project could near $100 million. Our legislation would give the Foundation an additional three years to raise the necessary funds to obtain the construction permit, and would ensure that work on the Memorial is completed. This extension of legislative authority has been done before for other memorials, given the length of time it usually takes to embark on a project of this magnitude, and it should be done for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial.

Dr. King serves as a reminder that change is brought about most powerfully when it is done by non-violent means. This country owes much to Dr. King, most notably his legacy of non-violent protest that has informed and influenced subsequent rights campaigns in our nation. Visitors will come to the Memorial from every part of this country and indeed the world, to be inspired anew by Dr. King's words and deeds, and the extraordinary story of his life. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation and grant the Foundation the additional time it needs to complete this significant monument.

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

Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation together with Senators Warner, Campbell, Murray, Clinton, Sessions, Hutchison and Miller which would grant a Federal Charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated. This legislation, which has passed the Senate in the past two Congresses, recognizes and honors the 5.7 million Americans who fought and served during the Korean War for their struggles and sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and ideals of our nation.

For the past three years, under the direction of Public Law 105-85, we have been marking the 50th Anniversary of the events of the Korean War--beginning with the events of June 1950 when the North Korea People's Army swept across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea. Members of our Armed Forces--including many from the State of Maryland--immediately answered the call of the U.N. to repel this forceful invasion. Without hesitation, these soldiers traveled to an unfamiliar corner of the world to join an unprecedented multi-national force comprised of 22 countries and risked their lives to protect freedom. The Americans who led this international effort were true patriots who fought with remarkable courage.

In battles such as Pork Chop Hill, the Inchon Landing and the frozen Chosin Reservoir, which was fought in temperatures as low as fifty- seven degrees below zero, they faced some of the most brutal combat in history. This year, on July 27, we will commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Military Armistice Agreement which officially ended armed hostilities. By the time the fighting had ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or prisoners of war--some of whom are still missing--and over 36,000 Americans had died. One hundred and thirty-one Korean War Veterans were awarded the nation's highest commendation for combat bravery, the Medal of Honor. Ninety-four of these soldiers gave their lives in the process.

There is an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial which reflects these losses and how brutal a war this was. It reads, ``Freedom is not Free.'' Yet, as a Nation, we have done little more than establish this memorial to publicly acknowledge the bravery of those who fought in the Korean War. The Korean War has been termed by many as the ``Forgotten War.'' Freedom is not free. We owe our Korean War Veterans a debt of gratitude. Granting this Federal charter--at no cost to the government--is a small expression of appreciation that we as a Nation can offer to these men and women, one which will enable them to work as a unified front to ensure that the ``Forgotten War'' is forgotten no more.

The Korean War Veterans Association was originally incorporated on June 25, 1985. Since its first annual reunion and memorial service in Arlington, Virginia, where its members decided to develop a national focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown substantially to a membership of approximately 19,000. A Federal charter would allow the Association to continue and grow its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. Specifically, it will afford the Korean War Veterans' Association the same status as other major veterans organizations and allow it to participate as part of select committees with other congressionally chartered veterans and military groups. A Federal charter will also accelerate the Association's ``accreditation'' with the Department of Veterans Affairs which will enable its members to assist in processing veterans' claims.

The Korean War Veterans have asked for very little in return for their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senators Warner, Lugar, Mikulski and Durbin in introducing legislation that would extend the legislative authority for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial for an additional three years. The monument to Martin Luther King, Jr., which will be built on the Mall, will honor one of this Nation's most treasured citizens. Dr. King challenged us to live by the principles set forth at this Nation's inception, and forever changed the fabric of this country.

Despite the enormous dedication of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation, Inc., additional time is necessary for the Foundation to erect a fitting tribute to Dr. King. The Commemorative Works Act currently requires that construction of the Memorial begin by November 2003. However, meeting the administrative procedures and fundraising requirements of the Act has been a very slow process.

On November 12, 1996, legislation was enacted authorizing construction of the Memorial within a seven-year period. It then took Congress another two years to pass legislation authorizing placement of the Memorial in Area I of the Capital. Then the Foundation worked with the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission for Fine Arts for over a year to locate an appropriate site for the Memorial within Area I. As a result, the Foundation was unable to select a design for the Memorial until September 2000.

This consultative process has been challenging, but it has resulted in a design for a Memorial on the Tidal Basin that will fittingly reflect the legacy of the greatest civil rights leader of our time. Initial estimates indicate that the construction costs of the Memorial alone could be as much as $60 million, and the Foundation is actively engaged in fundraising for the Memorial. However, it does not expect to have the necessary funds to receive the construction permit by the deadline of November 2003 as dictated by the Commemorative Works Act. One hundred percent of the funding must be privately financed, and the total cost of the project could near $100 million. Our legislation would give the Foundation an additional three years to raise the necessary funds to obtain the construction permit, and would ensure that work on the Memorial is completed. This extension of legislative authority has been done before for other memorials, given the length of time it usually takes to embark on a project of this magnitude, and it should be done for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial.

Dr. King serves as a reminder that change is brought about most powerfully when it is done by non-violent means. This country owes much to Dr. King, most notably his legacy of non-violent protest that has informed and influenced subsequent rights campaigns in our nation. Visitors will come to the Memorial from every part of this country and indeed the world, to be inspired anew by Dr. King's words and deeds, and the extraordinary story of his life. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation and grant the Foundation the additional time it needs to complete this significant monument.

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

Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation together with Senators Warner, Campbell, Murray, Clinton, Sessions, Hutchison and Miller which would grant a Federal Charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated. This legislation, which has passed the Senate in the past two Congresses, recognizes and honors the 5.7 million Americans who fought and served during the Korean War for their struggles and sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and ideals of our nation.

For the past three years, under the direction of Public Law 105-85, we have been marking the 50th Anniversary of the events of the Korean War--beginning with the events of June 1950 when the North Korea People's Army swept across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea. Members of our Armed Forces--including many from the State of Maryland--immediately answered the call of the U.N. to repel this forceful invasion. Without hesitation, these soldiers traveled to an unfamiliar corner of the world to join an unprecedented multi-national force comprised of 22 countries and risked their lives to protect freedom. The Americans who led this international effort were true patriots who fought with remarkable courage.

In battles such as Pork Chop Hill, the Inchon Landing and the frozen Chosin Reservoir, which was fought in temperatures as low as fifty- seven degrees below zero, they faced some of the most brutal combat in history. This year, on July 27, we will commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Military Armistice Agreement which officially ended armed hostilities. By the time the fighting had ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or prisoners of war--some of whom are still missing--and over 36,000 Americans had died. One hundred and thirty-one Korean War Veterans were awarded the nation's highest commendation for combat bravery, the Medal of Honor. Ninety-four of these soldiers gave their lives in the process.

There is an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial which reflects these losses and how brutal a war this was. It reads, ``Freedom is not Free.'' Yet, as a Nation, we have done little more than establish this memorial to publicly acknowledge the bravery of those who fought in the Korean War. The Korean War has been termed by many as the ``Forgotten War.'' Freedom is not free. We owe our Korean War Veterans a debt of gratitude. Granting this Federal charter--at no cost to the government--is a small expression of appreciation that we as a Nation can offer to these men and women, one which will enable them to work as a unified front to ensure that the ``Forgotten War'' is forgotten no more.

The Korean War Veterans Association was originally incorporated on June 25, 1985. Since its first annual reunion and memorial service in Arlington, Virginia, where its members decided to develop a national focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown substantially to a membership of approximately 19,000. A Federal charter would allow the Association to continue and grow its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. Specifically, it will afford the Korean War Veterans' Association the same status as other major veterans organizations and allow it to participate as part of select committees with other congressionally chartered veterans and military groups. A Federal charter will also accelerate the Association's ``accreditation'' with the Department of Veterans Affairs which will enable its members to assist in processing veterans' claims.

The Korean War Veterans have asked for very little in return for their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, let me say how much I appreciate the clarion call which the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia has been sounding. It is an extremely important issue--actually the No. 1 challenge facing the country.

Am I correct that the budget submitted by the administration--and I know the very able Senator probably knows more about the appropriations process than any Member of this body--did not contain any money for a potential war in Iraq or for subsequent reconstruction efforts?

So the deficits projected in the President's budget, which are now going up toward the $300 billion level--and which have broken us out of the situation we were in only a couple of years ago where we were running surpluses--do not encompass potential costs of this military action in Iraq. In other words, the deficits would be significantly enhanced by whatever the amount of the cost would be; is that correct?

I was listening carefully to the Senator. As I understand it--and the estimates are all over the lot--the administration represents that it could last 4 days, or it could last 4 weeks, or it could last 4 months; and you try to get them to pinpoint it, and they say: Well, who can tell what is going to happen? I gather even the Pentagon--and presumably they want to present the best light-- is estimating a $100 billion cost.

And you have an estimate for the reconstruction that was $30 billion, roughly speaking.

At a minimum. Of course, that was assuming we would not have this kind of devastation out there that might be possible if the weapons of mass destruction were to be utilized.

Well, these are tremendous costs that are staring us in the face, are they not?

I think it is a very important service the Senator is rendering in order to lay this out. Many people seem to be skipping right over this dimension, in terms of evaluating the path we should follow in dealing with the challenge we confront in the region.

I thank the Senator for bringing this to our attention. It is an extremely important point, and the Senator is absolutely right. It has simply been glossed over in any consideration of this matter.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I rise to express my support for the nomination of William H. Donaldson to be the Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

In my view, Mr. Donaldson will bring considerable relevant experience to the position of SEC Chairman. He founded and managed a major investment company, Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, and served as Chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange. He was Chairman, President and CEO of a multi-billion dollar public company, Aetena, Inc., and served as the first Dean and a Professor at the Yale School of Management. His background demonstrates that he is qualified for this position.

Mr. Donaldson will face a daunting task as the new SEC Chairman. He must join with his fellow Commissioners to appoint the Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. He must address the challenge of restoring confidence to the capital markets. And I very much hope that will move immediately to implement full pay parity of salary and benefits for the SEC staff.

I am pleased that, in his appearance before the Senate Banking Committee, Mr. Donaldson recognized the importance and immediate challenge of implementing the new accounting responsibility and investor protection legislation which the Congress passed last year. He testified that he ``will vigorously enforce the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and regulations already put forth by the SEC.'' He said, ``I will demand accountability from all responsible parties. I will aggressively enforce civil penalties and work cooperatively with the state and federal law enforcement agencies and the President's corporate fraud task force to bring those who break the law to justice.'' He went on to pledge to call on

corporate America and Wall Street to restore the principles of honesty and integrity to their proper place.

Mr. Donaldson also indicated a strong concern for the welfare of the SEC employees. He pledged to address issues of staff morale and union relations at the Agency.

I am hopeful that Mr. Donaldson will effectively manage the SEC and effectively enforce the Federal securities laws. I hope that he will bring about a new era of respect for the Agency and confidence in the U.S. securities markets.

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing legislation, together with my colleague Senator Mikulski, to re-designate Catoctin Mountain Park as the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. I first introduced this measure in October 2002, but unfortunately it was not acted upon during the closing days of the 107th Congress. It is my hope that the legislation will receive full and prompt consideration this year.

I spoke last year about the need for this legislation and would like to underscore the principal arguments today. Catoctin Mountain Park is a hidden gem in our National Park System. Home to Camp David, the Presidential retreat, it has been aptly described as ``America's most famous unknown park.'' Comprising nearly 6000 acres of the eastern reach of the Appalachian Mountains in Maryland, the park is rich in history as well as outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors can enjoy camping, picnicking, cross-country skiing, fishing, as well as the solitude and beauty of the woodland mountain and streams in the park.

Catoctin Mountain Park had its origins during the Great Depression as one of 46 Recreational Demonstration Areas, RDA, established under the authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Federal Government purchased more than 10,000 acres of mountain land that had been heavily logged and was no longer productive to demonstrate how sub-marginal land could be turned into a productive recreational area and help put people back to work. From 1936 through 1941, hundreds of workers under the Works Progress Administration and later the Civilian Conservation Corps were employed in reforestation activities and in the construction of a number of camps, roads and other facilities, including the camp now known as Camp David, and one of the earliest--if not the oldest--camp for disabled individuals. In November 1936, administrative authority for the Catoctin RDA was transferred to the National Park Service by Executive Order.

In 1942, concern about President Roosevelt's health and safety led to the selection of Catoctin Mountain, and specifically Camp Hi-Catoctin as the location for the President's new retreat. Subsequently approximately 5,000 acres of the area was transferred to the State of Maryland, becoming Cunningham Falls State Park in 1954. The remaining 5,770 acres of the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was renamed Catoctin Mountain Park by the Director of the National Park Service in 1954. Unfortunately, the Director failed to include the term ``National'' in the title and the park today remains one of 17 units in the entire National Park System and one of 9 units in the National Capital Region that does not have this designation. Those units include four parkways, four wild and scenic rivers, the White House and Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts.

The proximity of Catoctin Mountain Park, Camp David, and Cunningham Falls State Park, and the differences between national and state park management, has caused longstanding confusion for visitors to the area. Catoctin Mountain Park is continually misidentified by the public as containing lake and beach areas associated with Cunningham Falls State Park, being operated by the State of Maryland, or being closed to the public because of the presence of Camp David. National Park employees spend countless hours explaining, assisting and redirecting visitors to their desired destinations.

My legislation would help to address this situation and clearly identify this park as a unit of the National Park System by renaming it the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. The mission and characteristics of this park--which include the preservation of significant historic resources and important natural areas in locations that provide outdoor recreation for large numbers of people--make this designation appropriate. This measure would not change access requirements or current recreational uses occurring within the park. But it would assist the visiting public in distinguishing between the many units of the State and Federal systems. It will also, in my judgment, help promote tourism by enhancing public awareness of the National Park unit.

The legislation is supported by the Board of County Commissioners and Tourism Council of Frederick County. I urge approval of this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing legislation, together with my colleague Senator Mikulski, to re-designate Catoctin Mountain Park as the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. I first introduced this measure in October 2002, but unfortunately it was not acted upon during the closing days of the 107th Congress. It is my hope that the legislation will receive full and prompt consideration this year.

I spoke last year about the need for this legislation and would like to underscore the principal arguments today. Catoctin Mountain Park is a hidden gem in our National Park System. Home to Camp David, the Presidential retreat, it has been aptly described as ``America's most famous unknown park.'' Comprising nearly 6000 acres of the eastern reach of the Appalachian Mountains in Maryland, the park is rich in history as well as outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors can enjoy camping, picnicking, cross-country skiing, fishing, as well as the solitude and beauty of the woodland mountain and streams in the park.

Catoctin Mountain Park had its origins during the Great Depression as one of 46 Recreational Demonstration Areas, RDA, established under the authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Federal Government purchased more than 10,000 acres of mountain land that had been heavily logged and was no longer productive to demonstrate how sub-marginal land could be turned into a productive recreational area and help put people back to work. From 1936 through 1941, hundreds of workers under the Works Progress Administration and later the Civilian Conservation Corps were employed in reforestation activities and in the construction of a number of camps, roads and other facilities, including the camp now known as Camp David, and one of the earliest--if not the oldest--camp for disabled individuals. In November 1936, administrative authority for the Catoctin RDA was transferred to the National Park Service by Executive Order.

In 1942, concern about President Roosevelt's health and safety led to the selection of Catoctin Mountain, and specifically Camp Hi-Catoctin as the location for the President's new retreat. Subsequently approximately 5,000 acres of the area was transferred to the State of Maryland, becoming Cunningham Falls State Park in 1954. The remaining 5,770 acres of the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was renamed Catoctin Mountain Park by the Director of the National Park Service in 1954. Unfortunately, the Director failed to include the term ``National'' in the title and the park today remains one of 17 units in the entire National Park System and one of 9 units in the National Capital Region that does not have this designation. Those units include four parkways, four wild and scenic rivers, the White House and Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts.

The proximity of Catoctin Mountain Park, Camp David, and Cunningham Falls State Park, and the differences between national and state park management, has caused longstanding confusion for visitors to the area. Catoctin Mountain Park is continually misidentified by the public as containing lake and beach areas associated with Cunningham Falls State Park, being operated by the State of Maryland, or being closed to the public because of the presence of Camp David. National Park employees spend countless hours explaining, assisting and redirecting visitors to their desired destinations.

My legislation would help to address this situation and clearly identify this park as a unit of the National Park System by renaming it the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. The mission and characteristics of this park--which include the preservation of significant historic resources and important natural areas in locations that provide outdoor recreation for large numbers of people--make this designation appropriate. This measure would not change access requirements or current recreational uses occurring within the park. But it would assist the visiting public in distinguishing between the many units of the State and Federal systems. It will also, in my judgment, help promote tourism by enhancing public awareness of the National Park unit.

The legislation is supported by the Board of County Commissioners and Tourism Council of Frederick County. I urge approval of this legislation.

Mr. President, we are deeply saddened by Saturday's loss of seven astronauts as they returned from a 16-day voyage aboard the space shuttle Columbia. The tragic loss of the crew of mission STS- 107 touches not only all Americans, but also many members of our larger, global community. As we honor the courageous men and women of the Columbia and mourn their loss, our thoughts and prayers are with their families and loved ones.

The seven men and women aboard the Columbia were truly a select group of explorers. They represented the vast range and distinction of our nation's skills and achievements; all had extensive training in various fields of scientific inquiry. At the same time, they represented America's finest aspirations. Diverse in their origins, they shared a dream of space travel, and they lived and worked together in a common spirit of cooperation, curiosity, and courage.

Michael Anderson, Columbia's payload commander, spoke for all the crew when he said the following, in an interview appearing in the Baltimore Sun this past Sunday:

I take the risk because I think what we're doing is really

important. For me, it's the fact that what I'm doing can have

great consequences and great benefits for everyone, for

mankind.

Research was the primary mission of STS-107. The Columbia carried 32 payloads with material for 59 separate investigations. Among these payloads were student experiments from Australia, China, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, and the United States. State-of-the-art communications equipment allowed earthbound researchers and the global public to witness experiments as they were being performed. To make the most of their 16 short days in space, the seven astronauts worked in two shifts, around the clock. We have suffered the grievous loss of our astronauts. But the astronauts completed much of their mission.

We can honor the crew of mission STS-107, Colonel Rick D. Husband, Commander William McCool, Lieutenant Colonel Michael P. Anderson, Captain David M. Brown, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, Commander Laurel Blair Salton Clark, and Colonel Ilan Ramon, by rededicating ourselves anew to the mission they so vigorously embraced. We must have a prompt and thorough account of the events that brought down the Columbia, but we must not let our great sense of loss deter us from continuing their work. For more than forty years, the space program has played a vital role in our broader national research efforts. Our space explorations have led to scores of new discoveries, which have given us not only better insights into the universe but also a better understanding of the earth, and of life here on earth. We will remain forever grateful to the crew of the Columbia for the legacy they have left us, and the example they set.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with Marylanders and all Americans in celebrating the anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, FMLA. The FMLA was passed 10 years ago today on February 5, 1993. It addressed one of the most pressing issues of the time: how to help parents and other family members balance the demands of work and family. Balancing these demands has always been difficult, but the last few decades have seen an increase in working mothers, single parents and working families who are caring for elderly relatives. Trying to cope with the dual burdens of work and family left many families and individuals unable to meet all the demands placed on them.

The FMLA was designed to help ease the burden on many of these families. The FMLA requires private employers with at least 50 employees, and public employers, to give unpaid leave to employees who meet the eligibility requirements for such leave. To be eligible, the FMLA requires that employees have worked for the employer for at least 12 months, and have worked a minimum of 1,250 hours. The employee, if eligible, is entitled to up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per 12-month period. FMLA leave can be taken to care for the ``serious health condition'' of the employee, a child of the employee or a parent of the employee, or for an employee to care for a newborn, newly adopted child or newly placed foster child. Employees are not required to take the leave in one block, and are entitled to receive health benefits during their FMLA leave.

In 2001 the Department of Labor commissioned a report to study the impact of the FMLA. The report found that almost 62 percent of public and private employees are covered by the FMLA. The benefits of the FMLA have thus been applied to the majority of American workers, a significant accomplishment. In addition, the FMLA seems to be working. A significant majority of employers report that the FMLA has no effect on their company's performance: 76.5 percent of employers say that the FMLA has no effect on productivity, 87.6 percent say that the FMLA has no effect on profitability, and 87.7 percent report that the FMLA has no effect on their company's growth. A majority of employers also report that the FMLA has little to no effect on the individual employee's performance. And most of the 23.8 million employees who used FMLA leave in 1999-2000 reported that their experience was positive.

Beyond these raw numbers, the FMLA has had a profound effect on the lives of many American workers. Working mothers and fathers are able to take time to care for their sick children, sons and daughters are able to care for aging parents, and new mothers and fathers are able to spend precious time bonding with their newborns or newly adopted babies during the first weeks of life. The FMLA does not force workers to choose between family and work. No amount of statistics can quantify the value of the days and hours family members get to spend helping one another during these crucial times.

But we should look at ways to make this very successful program available to more American workers and bring the benefits of this important legislation to more who need it. To this end, I am a cosponsor of a bill that would provide wage replacement for eligible individuals who have taken FMLA leave for the birth or adoption of a son or daughter or other family care giving needs. The bill would also amend the FMLA to extend coverage to employees at worksites of at least 25 employees, a decrease from the current 50-employee requirement. And the bill would entitle employees who must address the effects of domestic violence to take FMLA leave. I urge my colleagues to work with me to ensure the passage and enactment of this important legislation.

On the 10th anniversary of the FMLA legislation, let us remember the success of this program, and let us also focus on ways in which we can make improvements to the program so that it can benefit all American workers.