Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my comments, Senator Stabenow be recognized, then Senator Salazar and Senator Reed be recognized. All of us seek to speak about our colleague, Senator Corzine.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, in a few weeks our good friend, Jon Corzine, will leave the Senate, where he so effectively represented New Jersey and its people over the past 5 years, to become Governor of his State. I have been privileged to serve with Senator Corzine on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, to whose work he has brought an extraordinary combination of principle, vision, intelligence, and solid common sense. I wish to say a few words today about his spectacular work on that committee. For a while, I was privileged to serve as chairman of the committee, and I can tell you that no chairman could have a better fate than to have Jon Corzine as one of his members.

Prior to entering the U.S. Senate, Jon Corzine spent nearly a quarter of a century with Goldman Sachs, the New York investment bank, including five as its chairman and CEO. His long and wide-ranging experience in the financial markets made him especially well qualified to deal with the issues that came within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction. In very short order, it was apparent that whenever Jon Corzine's turn in a committee meeting came to put questions to witnesses, even the most confident and sophisticated among them listened more intently and responded more carefully.

Senator Corzine's contribution to the accounting reform and investor protection legislation known as Sarbanes-Oxley was invaluable. Along with Senator Dodd, who also serves on the committee, Jon Corzine was among the first members of the Senate to call for hearings on investor protection in the wake of the collapse of Enron Corporation. Those hearings took place in February and March of 2002, and Senator Corzine, along with others on the committee, Senator Dodd and others, played a critical role in shaping the reform legislation enacted 4 months later. I have done it before and I wish to again acknowledge the very substantial and significant contributions Jon Corzine made in helping to shape and develop that legislation. His work was invaluable.

Consistently in the work of the committee, Jon Corzine played a critical role in efforts to strengthen protections for investors in our capital markets. BusinessWeek, in fact, noted that his work in this area gave him ``an unusually high profile for a junior Senator.''

His contributions to the work of the committee were by no means focused only on these issues. Indeed, he touched virtually every issue in the committee's jurisdiction. He has worked vigorously to expand housing opportunities and the effectiveness of Federal housing programs. He has been a forceful spokesman for full funding for critical programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development-- section 8 vouchers, housing for the elderly, improved public housing, and other efforts to assist low-income homeowners and renters. It is indicative of his commitment, and in his statement here in the Chamber only a few minutes ago he again was making reference to how people who work at minimum wage can't afford an apartment in county after county across the country.

He led efforts to expand coverage of FHA insurance for multifamily housing, something especially relevant in States such as New Jersey where inflated housing costs affected previous program ceilings. He pressed for energy efficiency requirements in public and assisted housing, and he has remained committed to Federal action to assure secondary mortgage market liquidity and affordable housing.

Jon Corzine was an original cosponsor of the legislation to stop predatory lending practices and spoke forcefully in the committee's deliberation about the harsh and cynical techniques predatory lenders used to exploit vulnerable borrowers seeking mortgages and other credit. He has been one of the leaders in the Senate in the fight against Federal preemption of State consumer protection laws which are designed to protect our citizens against these practices.

He has been among the Senate's most outspoken advocates for public and private financial literacy programs to ensure that all Americans of all ages and all backgrounds have the skills to grasp the financial implications of the often complex credit card loans and other financial arrangements they are offered.

He has obtained Federal funding for financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools and was the leader in the ultimately successful efforts in 2003 to pass the Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act, which incorporates many of his ideas. For his work on this issue, the JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy named him ``Federal Financial Literacy and Education Legislator of the Year.''

Throughout his tenure, Senator Corzine has been among our most articulate advocates for public transportation, whose importance in the day-to-day lives of his constituents he knows firsthand since he represents the most densely populated State in the Nation. He fought to preserve and enhance the Federal transit program as the new surface transportation authorization legislation was developed. As a result of his efforts, New Jersey will receive nearly $2.5 billion in transit formula funds from 2004 through 2009, a 50-percent increase over the amount the State received in the predecessor legislation.

He also succeeded in assuring priority treatment in terms of planning, funding, and execution under this new legislation for a new commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River. This project, the Trans- Hudson Midtown Corridor, has been identified as a crucial investment for the region's mobility and security. As a result of his efforts, the National Transit Institute, which provides training, education, and clearinghouse services to support public transportation, will be maintained at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Senator Corzine was a leader in the effort to develop a Federal backstop for terrorism insurance after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Those attacks left such insurance widely unavailable and put businesses and commercial property owners at risk of future losses from terrorism without having insurance coverage. He recognized immediately this situation would create a drag on economic activity and again brought his expertise to bear in helping to develop the Federal legislation under which the Federal Government would share the risk of future terrorism losses with the industry.

Senator Corzine was one of the first to recognize the threat that identity theft poses both to consumers and to the integrity of the Nation's payment system. He has been a leader in the fight for safeguards on personal information, on protecting the privacy of our citizens.

Many of these things I have spoken about reflect a common theme, and that is Jon Corzine's concern for those left out and left behind. It has been a hallmark of his service in the Senate that he has sought to bring into the mainstream of American life those who have been left out of it. This concern for those, in a sense, who have been forgotten, was reflected in his work in the international arena, particularly the emphasis he placed on the situation in Darfur. Again and again, Jon Corzine took the floor of the Senate to bring to our attention the terrible things that were happening there and to push for measures to help alleviate that situation.

Finally, let me say what has distinguished Senator Corzine's service in the Senate over and above his many specific accomplishments is the dedication and vision and principles that underlie all his work. Before coming to

the Senate, he spent much of his professional life as an investment banker. But he brought to his responsibilities certain fundamental convictions about the nature of American society, a hopeful and optimistic vision of American life that first took place as he was growing up in a small farming community in central Illinois. It was there he has said he learned ``the meaning of hard work and the opportunities afforded by a strong education system.''

Jon Corzine went on to earn his B.A. as Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve where he served for 6 years. He attended the University of Chicago Business School at night, and not too much later he joined Goldman Sachs.

His many years in the financial markets have not dimmed Jon Corzine's vision of America as a nation grounded in opportunity--opportunity for a good education, for a decent job, a place to raise one's family and someday to retire with dignity, security, and self-respect. He has dedicated his efforts to advance programs that can make this vision a reality for all his fellow Americans.

When he announced his candidacy for Governor of New Jersey last December, Senator Corzine pledged he would ``fight like crazy to make sure that there is a view that government can be a partner in lifting up the lives of the rest of America.'' This is surely what he has done in the Senate.

In just 5 short years, notwithstanding his junior status in a body that sets a high premium on seniority--when I first came here I was very critical of the seniority system, but I have to admit that as time has gone by I have come to see the virtues of the system. Jon Corzine has had an impressive record of accomplishment. He has demonstrated the astute and principled leadership in the Senate that will most assuredly make him a distinguished Governor of the State of New Jersey in the service of all its people.

If I may be so bold as to address a word to the people of New Jersey, I simply say they have an extraordinary leader about to take over as the Governor of their State. I urge them to give Jon Corzine their backing and support so he can bring his vision to bear in the State of New Jersey.

When Woodrow Wilson became Governor of the State of New Jersey, he introduced a progressive agenda which became the model for the Nation. New Jersey went to the very forefront of the 50 States in addressing fairness and opportunity for its citizens and enhancing their quality of life. I say today, as we bid our dear colleague a fond farewell, Jon Corzine can provide that kind of leadership for New Jersey. He can move that State to the very forefront of the 50 States and make it a shining example of what can be accomplished when all of us pull together in order to enhance opportunity for each and every one. I wish him the very best as he leaves this body and in the years ahead.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?

I thank the very able Senator from California for her yielding to allow these tributes to be paid to Senator Corzine. I know she has been here quite a while waiting to speak on another issue. It was extremely gracious of her to do that. I wanted to recognize that and thank her very much.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005. This legislation represents a bipartisan, bi-cameral compromise to extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 for 2 years, through December 31, 2007. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleagues, as it is through the hard work of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and Senators Dodd and Bennett, along with the House negotiators, led by Financial Services Committee Chairman Oxley and ranking member Frank, that we have been able to work out this compromise and ensure that TRIA continues.

As I said when the Senate first considered a TRIA extension bill in November of this year, the original TRIA was designed to address the adverse impact on the terrorism insurance marketplace of the sudden lack of terrorism reinsurance after the September 11th attacks. Reinsurance is a mechanism by which insurance companies spread their own risks, allowing them to write more policies; without it, insurers' capacity to offer coverage for losses due to terrorism shrank considerably. By all accounts, the federal backstop provided by TRIA achieved its goal of making terrorism insurance coverage available and affordable once again. The Treasury Department reported this summer, ``TRIA was effective in terms of the purposes it was designed to achieve. TRIA provided a transitional period during which insurers had enhanced financial capacity to write terrorism risk insurance coverage. . . . More generally, TRIA provided an adjustment period allowing both insurers and policyholders to adjust to the post-September 11th view of terrorism risk.''

However, after the Treasury Department released its report, serious disagreements emerged as to what would be the most efficient, effective, and equitable way to assure the continued availability of terrorism insurance. This is an issue that deserves careful analysis, which is why this extension bill contains a requirement for a study by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets on the long-term availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance. I hope that this requirement will result in a thorough examination of the issues and will include input from all stakeholders, which will help us answer the question of how to insure against terrorism over the long-term.

To allow time for that examination to take place, this compromise legislation continues the TRIA program for 2 additional years, with certain modifications, which I will briefly summarize.

Following the model of the extension bill passed by the Senate in November of this year, this legislation narrows the scope of the TRIA program, further targeting the program toward the types of terrorism insurance that are the most difficult to provide. Under the terms of the extension, the federal backstop will no longer be available for insurance policies covering commercial automobiles, professional liability, burglary and theft, farm owners, multiple peril, and surety.

Just as the original TRIA did, this extension places more of the risk on the insurance industry, and correspondingly less on the Federal Government, in each year. For example, in 2005, under the current program, the amount of terrorism losses that an insurer must cover before federal assistance becomes available is 15 percent of the premiums collected by that insurer in lines covered by the TRIA program. Under this extension, this ``insurance company deductible'' will rise to 17.5 percent of premiums in 2006, and 20 percent of premiums in 2007. Moreover, the amount that insurers must pay above their deductible also increases, rising from 10 percent of losses in 2006, to 15 percent of losses in 2007.

In addition to the individual insurance companies' deductible, the insurance industry as a whole must cover a certain amount of losses before federal assistance becomes available. In 2005, the last year of the current TRIA program, that amount is $15 billion. Under this legislation, that amount will rise to $25 billion in 2006, and $27.5 billion in 2007, an increase from the amounts included in the legislation originally passed by the Senate in November.

Also, after March 31, 2006, no federal assistance will be available at all under the program for a terrorist attack in which total losses do not exceed $50 million, a level which rises to $100 million in 2007. The starting date for this increase in the trigger level is later than it was in the bill passed by the Senate in November, to allow the insurance industry and policyholders a grace period in which to adapt to the new level.

Finally, I want to emphasize that this compromise legislation, like the extension bills passed by both the Senate and the House earlier this year, retains a critically important piece of the current TRIA program: the requirement that insurers make terrorism coverage available to policyholders in all of the lines covered by TRIA.

These provisions follow the framework of the existing TRIA program, keeping the federal backstop in place so that insurers will continue writing terrorism policies, while placing progressively more of the costs onto the industry itself. As with any compromise product, no one would say that

the legislation is perfect. But it is a serious effort to address the concerns we have heard raised regarding TRIA and the potential effects of its expiration, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. President, I want to congratulate subcommittee Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Murray for successfully concluding this conference report. I would like to note that this is the first time this subcommittee, as currently constituted, has brought a conference report to the Senate and, in my view, this report is a worthy achievement and I intend to support it.

I note, in particular, the strong title on Transportation funding in the report. We all worked very hard to pass a Transportation authorization bill earlier this year that maintains a balanced transportation program, ensuring adequate funding for both our Nation's highways and transit programs. In my view, both of these components are extremely important to the future economic growth of our country, and I am happy to note that the conference report being brought to us this afternoon is largely faithful to the provisions included in SAFETEA-LU.

The report's provisions regarding Federal employees are also to be commended. The report includes language that will help Federal employees to compete on a more level playing field with contractors in cases where Federal agencies decide to consider contracting out jobs. The report ensures pay parity for all Federal employees--military and civilian alike. It also provides over $125 million to consolidate the FDA at White Oak, and ensures that 68 Taxpayer Assistance Centers, including 4 in Maryland, will remain open until after the inspector general completes a report to determine the impact proposed closures would have

on both employees and clients. I thank the managers of the bill for their hard work on these important issues.

I also want to talk about the appropriation for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. At the outset, I want to express my appreciation to Senator Bond for his commitment over many years to maintaining strong and effective housing programs. Senator Murray, who has not served as Ranking Member on the Subcommittee dealing with HUD issues until this year, has proven to be a very valuable addition to this effort and has shown a deep understanding of, and commitment to, these important programs.

The key problem that the Conferees faced in putting together this report is that they were not given enough money to fund the housing programs at a fully adequate level. For example, the HOME and CDBG program, both very flexible programs, used to build and rehabilitate housing, create new homeowners, and create new jobs, suffer modest cuts in the report.

Public Housing, the Nation's basic housing program for the poor, is inadequately funded as to both its day-to-day operations, and its long- term capital needs. The funding figures are very close to last year's appropriations--and I recognize that this was no easy task for the conferees--but we need more to maintain our basic investment in this fundamental program. HOPE VI is cut by nearly one-third, though I commend the managers for getting this much, given the administration's repeated efforts to kill the program altogether.

Finally, I want to express my deep disappointment that the conference report adopts the funding formula for renewal of section 8 vouchers put forward by the House instead of the far more effective formula adopted by the Senate in the bill we passed earlier this year.

Section 8 is the largest housing program funded the Federal Government, serving over 2 million low-income people. On the positive side, the conference report we are considering today does provide an increase in funds over last year that will help to restore at least some of the vouchers that were lost.

On the other hand, by adopting the House formula voucher renewals, we are likely to see the loss of thousands of valuable housing vouchers in fiscal year 2006. For several years, voucher funding for each housing authority has been allocated based on the prior year's cost and utilization of vouchers at each housing authority around the country. The Senate would have used as a base for this calculation the most recent 12-month period. By contrast, the House formula, which has been adopted by this report, uses only a 3-month snapshot. As you might expect, the Senate provision gives a much more accurate picture of both the housing authority's voucher utilization and costs by taking a broader picture of the data. In addition, the data that would be used under the Senate provision would be more up to date, ensuring a more accurate outcome.

Projections based on data from HUD confirm this view. Under the House formula, some housing authorities will get millions of dollars of voucher funds beyond what they can legally use, while others will not get enough to fund even vouchers that are currently in use. At a time of such tight resources, this kind of planned waste is simply inexcusable.

I want to emphasize that the Senate managers fought for the more sensible Senate language. It is unfortunate that the House, with the strong support of HUD, prevailed in this case. Earlier this week, a senior official at HUD said in the New York Times. ``Lack of Section 8 Vouchers for Storm Evacuees Highlights Rift Over Housing Program,'' November 8, 2005, ``The housing voucher program is something we believe in. But we have to make sure the money's well spent.''

I regret to say that HUD objected to the Senate provision which would have produced a demonstrably more effective and efficient allocation of section 8 funds. In the end, despite the efforts of the chairman and ranking member, HUD and the House prevailed. This concerns me greatly. I certainly hope that HUD does not come back next year and use the wasteful results of this ineffective system for which they advocated, as a rationale to provide less funding for fiscal year 2007.

Despite this significant disappointment, I want to, again, indicate my support for the overall package.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 705, legislation to establish an Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors. This legislation will help the Federal Government work with its partners to meet the growing housing and related needs of senior citizens around the country. The Interagency Council will work to better coordinate Federal programs so that seniors and their families can access the programs and the services necessary to allow them to age in place or find suitable housing alternatives.

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

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

In order for seniors to age in place, or find alternative housing arrangements, services must be linked with housing. Seniors must be able to access needed health supports, transportation, meal and chore services, and assistance with daily tasks in or close to their homes. Without needed supports, seniors and their families face difficult and even daunting decisions.

The Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors--``Seniors Commission''--established by Congress in 1999 found that too often, seniors face premature institutionalization because housing and services are not linked. According to the Commission's report, ``the very

heart'' of its work ``is the recognition that the housing and service needs of seniors traditionally have been addressed in different `worlds' that often fail to recognize or communicate with each other.'' The Commission concluded that: ``the most striking characteristic of seniors'' housing and health care in this country is the disconnection of one field from another.''

If left unattended, the problem of lack of coordination will increasingly undermine all of our efforts to assure that Americans, as they age, have access to the services they need. The Interagency Council on the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors will increase coordination and will serve as a permanent national platform to address the needs and issues of our aging population.

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

The decisions that our seniors and their families must make are difficult enough. They should not be made more painful and burdensome by having to negotiate a confusing maze of programs and services and a multiplicity of administrative procedures. I am hopeful that the Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors will be able to focus attention on this problem, while working towards solutions.

This bill has wide support from a diverse array of groups, ranging from senior advocates to faith-based organizations and direct service providers. The diversity of groups that have worked together in support of this legislation is indicative of the great need for such coordination. If we are to successfully address the growing needs of seniors, it is clear that much work must be done. The establishment of an Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors is a critical first step in this endeavor. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation as reported from Committee be printed immediately following this statement. I also ask unanimous consent that the attached letters of support, section-by-section analysis of the bill, and relevant fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Finally, I want to thank Chairman Shelby for his leadership and assistance in moving this legislation. I also want to acknowledge the excellent work of the staff on this bill, especially that of Jennifer Fogel-Bublick, as well as Sarah Garrett, Mark Calabria, and Tewana Wilkerson. In addition, we could not have done this without the active support of Kathy Casey, Chairman Shelby's Staff Director.

Exhibit 1

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005. Three years ago, we passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act to stabilize the insurance marketplace after the shock of the September 11 attacks. TRIA, as that Act became known, established a partnership between the insurance industry and the Federal Government to share the risk of significant losses from terrorism. TRIA is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. The bill that is now pending before the Senate would extend TRIA for an additional 2 years while requiring the insurance industry to take on progressively more of the terrorism risk.

This bill is the product of a great deal of effort by the Banking Committee to accommodate the widely differing views of many members on the structure of a TRIA extension. I thank the chairman of the Committee, Senator Shelby, for his willingness to reach across the aisle in developing this bill. Under his skillful guidance, we have been able to develop a product that has won unanimous support in the Banking Committee. I also want to recognize Senator Dodd for his dedication to this issue. He was instrumental in 2002 in the development and passage of the original TRIA legislation, and he has been a strong and effective leader this year as well.

The original TRIA was designed to address the adverse impact on the terrorism insurance marketplace of the sudden lack of terrorism reinsurance after the September 11 attacks. Reinsurance is a mechanism by which insurance companies spread their own risks, allowing them to write more policies. Without it, insurers' capacity to offer coverage for losses due to terrorism shrank considerably. By all accounts, the Federal backstop provided by TRIA achieved its goal of making terrorism insurance coverage available and affordable once again. The Treasury Department reported this summer, ``TRIA was effective in terms of the purposes it was designed to achieve. TRIA provided a transitional period during which insurers had enhanced financial capacity to write terrorism risk insurance coverage. . . . More generally, TRIA provided an adjustment period allowing both insurers and policyholders to adjust to the post-September 11th view of terrorism risk.''

As discussions began over a possible extension of TRIA, it became clear that there are serious disagreements as to what would be the most efficient, effective, and equitable way to assure the continued availability of terrorism insurance. A number of studies have concluded that the reinsurance market has not rebounded to any great extent since the attacks of 2001. These studies conclude that if the backstop provided by the Federal Government does not continue, insurers will write fewer terrorism policies or charge much higher prices for them, creating a drag on our nation's economy and leaving companies uninsured against a terrorist attack. On the other hand, the administration and others argue that the insurance industry is now better prepared to handle the risk of terrorism than it was three years ago, and that any extension of TRIA should therefore be significantly narrower than the current program to avoid crowding out additional private sector activity.

These are issues that deserve careful analysis, which is why this extension bill contains a requirement for a study by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets on the long-term availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance. I hope that this requirement will result in a thorough examination of the issues which will help us answer the question of how to insure against terrorism over the longterm.

To allow time for that examination to take place, the pending legislation continues the TRIA program for two additional years, with certain modifications, which I will briefly summarize.

This bill narrows the scope of the TRIA program, further targeting the program toward the types of terrorism insurance that are the most difficult to provide. Under the terms of the extension, the Federal backstop will no longer be available for insurance policies covering commercial automobiles, professional liability, burglary and theft, farmowners' multiple peril, and surety.

Just as the original TRIA did, this exteusion places more of the risk on the insurance industry, and correspondingly less on the federal government, in each year. For example, in 2005, under the current program, the amount of terrorism losses that an insurer must cover before Federal assistance becomes available is 15 percent of the premiums collected by that insurer in lines covered by the TRIA program. Under this extension, this ``insurance company deductible'' will rise to 17.5 percent of premiums in 2006, and 20 percent of premiums in 2007. Moreover, the amount that insurers must pay above their deductible also increases, rising from 10 percent of losses in 2006, to 15 percent of losses in 2007.

In addition to the individual insurance companies' deductible, tbe insurance industry as a whole must cover a certain amount of losses before federal assistance becomes available. In 2005, the last year of the current TRIA program, that amount is $15 billion. Under this legislation, that will rise to $17.5 billion in 2006, and $20 billion in 2007.

Also, starting in 2006, no Federal assistance will be available at all under tbe program for a terrorist attack in which total losses do not exceed $50 million, a level which rises to $100 million in 2007.

Finally, I want to emphasize that the extension retains a critically important piece of the current TRIA program: the requirement that insurers make terrorism coverage available to policyholders in all of the lines covered by TRIA.

These provisions follow the framework of the existing TRIA program, keeping the Federal backstop in place so that insurers will continue writing terrorism policies, while placing progressively more of the costs onto the industry itself. I want to take just a moment to acknowledge the hard work that the staff has put into this bill, particularly Sarah Kline from my Banking Committee staff, Alex Sternhell with Senator Dodd, Kathy Casey and Mark Oesterle with Chairman Shelby, and Mike Nielson with Senator Bennett. As with any compromise product, no one would say that the legislation is perfect. But it is a serious effort to address the concerns we have heard raised regarding TRIA and the potential effects of its expiration, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. President, I want to pay tribute today to Michael O. Hill, superintendent of Assateague Island National Seashore. Mike is retiring after a long and distinguished career in the National Park Service, and I want to thank him for his service to our Nation and especially for the outstanding job he did in managing and enhancing Assateague Island National Seashore since coming to Maryland in 2000.

Throughout his 33-year career with the National Park Service, Mike Hill has distinguished himself through his commitment and dedication to managing and protecting some of our Nation's most precious treasures. Beginning as a seasonal employee at Sequoia National Park in 1973, Mike's career quickly took him through a variety of increasingly challenging posts, from his first permanent position as a horse patrol ranger at Petrified Forest National Park to management positions in parks all over our country including Channel Islands National Park, Shenandoah National Park, VA, and Biscayne National Park, FL. In 1990, he was selected for the 2-year Bevinetto congressional fellowship program, where he worked with the National Park Service and Congress to better manage our national parks. In 1993, he became superintendent of Petersburg National Battlefield, and in 2000 he was selected for his present position at Assateague Island National Seashore.

Over the past 5 years, I have had the opportunity and privilege to work closely with Mike on several initiatives to protect the natural resources at Assateague and to enhance visitors' experiences at the seashore. I know firsthand the great leadership and expertise he brought not only to these initiatives, but equally important, to supporting and encouraging one of the finest staffs of park professionals in the country--at a time when all our parks are operating with only two-thirds of the needed funding and personnel. Under Mike's direction, the integrity of the northern 7 miles of the National Seashore has been restored after decades of unnatural erosion, plans have been advanced to develop a new barrier island visitors center to accommodate the increasing number of visitors to the park, and partnerships with the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, the Maryland Coastal Bay Program, and the State and local governments have been strengthened.

Mike's dedication to the stewardship of the National Park System has earned him the respect and admiration of his colleagues, park visitors, and community residents, alike. His passion for Assateague was evident even in

his voicemail: ``I can't take your call right now. With any luck, I'm out on the Island.'' It is due to that commitment that visitors to Assateague and other units of the National Park System will benefit from his labors for years to come. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of hard work and dedication to the principal conservation mission of the National Park Service and join with his friends and coworkers in wishing him and his family well in the years to come.

It is my firm conviction that public service is one of the most honorable callings, one that demands the very best, most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens and country. Throughout his career, Mike Hill has exemplified a steadfast commitment to meeting his demand.

Mr. President, first, I commend both Senator Shelby, the chairman of the subcommittee, and my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, the ranking member, for their hard work in bringing this conference report to the Senate this afternoon. I do want to express my regret that this report does not contain an important provision, to provide emergency housing vouchers to victims of the recent hurricanes.

On September 14 of this year, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment to this bill to provide $3.5 billion in emergency spending to be used to ensure that any person displaced as a result of the hurricanes could receive a housing voucher. These emergency housing vouchers would have enabled displaced families to find and afford safe, decent, and stable housing.

While FEMA and HUD are providing some housing assistance to evacuees, it is clear from news reports, as well as from people in the affected areas, that the promises of housing assistance from the Federal Government are falling far short of what is necessary. Just in the past week, there have been articles about the lack of stable housing for evacuees. The titles alone indicate the stress evacuees are under. For example:

Hurricane Evacuees Face Eviction Threats At Both Their Old

Homes and New;

Displaced in Crisis of Affordable Housing;

FEMA Housing Slow In Arriving.

The administration's housing policy for the victims of the recent hurricanes is unclear and inadequate. HUD is only assisting people who were assisted by HUD previously in the disaster areas, while FEMA has the responsibility for the vast majority of the evacuees. FEMA, an emergency management agency which is overwhelmed in the face of this unprecedented disaster, is now being tasked with the job of housing hundreds of thousands of people. This is not a job for FEMA. FEMA has provided people with 3-months' worth of rental assistance. However, it is clear that not all evacuees have received this assistance. Second, it is also not clear how evacuees and the landlords renting to them can be guaranteed that rental assistance will continue. Indeed, some Katrina victims are being threatened with eviction. FEMA seems to be handling the continuation of rental assistance on a case-by-case basis, with no clear rules or principles guiding these critical decisions.

In the words of an editorial in yesterday's New York Times:

The woefully inadequate program for housing put forward by

the administration is tantamount to stonewalling the Katrina

victims.

The emergency housing voucher proposal, which was adopted by the Senate, was, regrettably, not included in the conference report now under consideration. The Senate conferees met implacable resistance, apparently, from the House conferees and from the administration, as I understand it. But the emergency housing voucher proposal which this body adopted would have ensured that every evacuee in need would receive at least 6 months of rental assistance with an additional 6 months of assistance available if necessary. The assistance would have been distributed by HUD and the existing housing network, which houses millions of people around the Nation. There is extensive experience at

I thank the ranking member for that observation. I simply point out, as further stories are heard about the inability to get people back up on their feet and address their needs, it should be remembered that there were provisions in the Senate-passed bill which, if included in this conference report and therefore enacted into law, would have provided very important measures of assistance in a very timely fashion. I, too, regret very much that has not taken place.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to honor Werner Fornos, who is retiring after 23 years as president of the Population Institute. Across his long and productive career, Werner has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of Marylanders and people around the world.

Werner has been a dedicated public servant. He and I served together in the Maryland House of Delegates from 1966-1970. As a delegate he fought many important legislative battles--to protect the State's natural resources, to strengthen civil rights and to ensure open government. He served as Maryland's Manpower Administrator and as Assistant Secretary of Human Resources. At the Federal level he served as Special Assistant to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Labor for labor-management relations and Deputy Assistant Manpower Administrator.

Over the past three decades, Werner broadened his focus to the international arena, fighting to expand access to voluntary and affordable family planning information, education, and services to couples across the globe. He has spoken to college and university audiences and service and community organizations in all 50 States and has addressed virtually every major international population and development conference. He has written numerous opinion articles for newspapers and magazines worldwide, and is the author of the book, ``Gaining People, Losing Ground.''

His numerous awards and honors include the Humanist of the Year Award of the American Humanist Association; the University of Maryland University College Alumnus of the Year Award; Germany's Order of Merit, the highest distinction granted by the German Government; Rotary International's 2005 Service Above Self Award; and the 2003 United Nations Population Award.

Werner Fornos' efforts for more than a quarter of a century have aimed to provide a better quality of life for people everywhere. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending his extraordinary record of achievement and public service.

Mr. President, could I inquire what the parliamentary situation is.

How much time is available to each side?

I understand the Senator from New Hampshire has now yielded to the Senator from South Carolina. Could I inquire, so I have some idea of the sequencing, how much time the Senator from South Carolina will be using?

Would it be possible to make an opening statement before the chairman of the committee offers an amendment?

Ten minutes.

I thank the Chair.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the measure before us. As we well know, budgets are all about priorities. The budget resolution which was passed earlier this year paved the way for the reconciliation legislation which is now before us, legislation which I strongly believe represents the wrong set of priorities for America.

I say this for two primary reasons. One is the adverse impact this legislation will have on the Nation's soaring budget deficit; in effect, what it does to the fiscal underpinnings of our economy. The second very strong reason is the impact this legislation will have on families all across the country.

I commend the able Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, for his very effective leadership on this issue. He has been consistent throughout in trying to bring a sense of fiscal responsibility to our budget deliberations. His presentation earlier today has maintained that strong commitment, as he set out the fiscal consequences of the path on which we are proceeding.

The reconciliation process, which originated in the mid-1970s, provides fast-track procedural protections for reconciliation bills, which are supposedly designed to help achieve the goal of reducing budget deficits. Regrettably, that goal has been absent from the reconciliation process since 1997, which was the last time the Congress considered a reconciliation bill that actually sought to bring down the deficit. In fact, in recent years, the reconciliation process has been used not to bring down the deficit but to cut taxes. So a process designed to help reduce budget deficits has actually made our deficits worse, significantly worse, by speeding through the Congress package after package of excessive tax cuts.

This year's reconciliation process is no different. The budget resolution, which passed on a party-line vote earlier this year, provided fast-track procedural protection for both a spending bill and a tax bill. Both were provided this protection under the reconciliation process. So if one is to see the impact made on the deficit by the reconciliation process, one has to take into account both of these measures. Only one of the two is before us today. But the other is scheduled to follow

next week. They constitute part of a package.

Now, the budget resolution, passed earlier in the year, required various committees to make $35 billion in spending cuts. The effort to implement that is reflected in the legislation before us today. That same budget resolution required the Finance Committee to report a tax bill that reduces revenues by $70 billion. So we have a requirement, under the budget resolution now being implemented by this fast-track procedure, of $35 billion in spending cuts which I understand is actually coming in at $39 billion--and $70 billion in tax cuts.

The consequence of using this reconciliation process for both the spending cuts and the tax cuts will be to increase the budget deficit by more than $30 billion. So the reconciliation legislation, originally designed for the purpose of budget deficit reduction, is not, in fact, going to reduce the budget deficit; it is going to increase the budget deficit. This bill is really about trying to make room for more tax cuts, primarily benefitting the people at the very top of the income and wealth scale.

When you look at the reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution, on both the tax and spending sides, that conclusion is inescapable. The reconciliation legislation is a clear example of a fiscal policy that places a higher priority on tax cuts than on funding needed services and reducing the deficit. To me, that is a misplaced priority but, regrettably, one that has marked this administration.

Now, if the ranking member would yield for a couple of questions?

It is my understanding that when President Bush came into office in 2001, the fiscal situation which he inherited was one where we actually we were running a surplus in the Federal budget, if I am not mistaken. We were projecting a surplus, over the next 10-year period--2002 to 2011--of $5.6 trillion. I say to my colleague; is that correct? That was the projection at the time?

Of course, these were projections. We recognize that. But they were the best estimate that could be made. Over a 10-year period, we were projecting a surplus of $5.6 billion. In fact, some said we were paying down the debt too quickly, if the Senator will recall?

As I understand it, today, after this series of excessive tax cuts the President has pushed through, using this reconciliation process--actually, I think, abusing it, not using it, because it was designed to reduce deficits, not to increase deficits-- but using this fast-track procedure, the President and his allies in the Congress have pushed through a series of excessive tax cuts.

So as I understand it, we are now in deficit, $317 billion for the fiscal year that just ended, and we are facing projected deficits, over the next 10 years, of $4.5 trillion; is that correct?

Mr. President, I want to underscore what the very able Senator from North Dakota has pointed out. This is an incredible deterioration in the fiscal position of our Nation. We have gone, in less than 5 years' time, from projecting a surplus of $5.6 trillion, over a 10-year period, to a point where we are now projecting a deficit of $4.5 trillion over a 10-year period. And as the able Senator points out, that is a swing in our fiscal position of $10 trillion--$10 trillion in the wrong direction. It is incredible when one stops to think about it.

Could I ask the Senator, who is holding this debt?

Certainly.

If I could have 4 or 5 more minutes, I could draw to a close.

I thank the chairman.

Well, as was pointed out, rather than conserving the budget surplus, which President Bush inherited, he has chosen to risk our fiscal future through excessive tax cuts--tax cuts targeted to those who need them the least. This reconciliation process before us will only continue that pattern.

The reconciliation process is supposed to provide special protection to measures to bring the deficit down, not to provide special protection to a combination of measures, as we have here: some spending cuts but greatly exceeded by tax cuts.

So the net result of the reconciliation measures to be considered this week and next week will be an increase in the deficit of $30 billion. I don't know anyone who can contest that. It is pretty well conceded.

The instructions made it clear from the outset there was to be $35 billion in spending cuts--and they have increased it a few billion--and $70 billion in tax cuts. You put the two together, you have an increase in the deficit of over $30 billion.

We are facing serious future challenges. The Senator from North Dakota has been the leader in pointing out to us the need to consider the baby boomers as they approach retirement age, the impact that will have on the fiscal situation of the country, and how we can deal with that in a balanced and equitable way. That discussion is not taking place. Instead, we have this fast-track process in which the most vulnerable amongst us are asked to make the sacrifices in terms of the programs being cut, such as Medicaid and Medicare.

The New York Times, in an editorial on October 26, titled ``Stalking the Poor to Soothe the Affluent,'' said:

Impoverished Americans are being set up as targets this

week in Congress's desperate attempt to find budget cuts

after four straight years of tax cuts for the affluent.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

As I draw to a close, I just want to underscore what is happening. I had put a question to the Senator from North Dakota and there wasn't an opportunity to answer. Our debt is escalating at a faster rate than the budget deficit, which compounds the situation. Who is holding this debt? Who is buying this paper and, therefore, has claims against U.S. citizens looking out into the future?

Mr. President, I close with this observation: In one of his plays, Tennessee Williams has a character, Blanche Dubois, who says: I have always depended on the kindness of strangers. That is what is happening to the fiscal future of the United States of America. We are becoming increasingly dependent on foreign nations, in many instances central bankers, not individuals, central bankers buying our debt, holding this paper, financing this deficit, underwriting this debt. The United States, as a consequence, is losing a measure of its strength and independence which only underscores the seriousness of the situation we confront.

I asked the Senator who was holding the debt.

Certainly.

As I look at the chart which the Senator has presented, Japan has $684 billion of it; China, $248 billion--and that is rapidly escalating, moving upwards very fast--the United Kingdom, $174 billion. Caribbean banking centers are holding over $100 billion of our national debt. This is a recipe for eventual disaster if we don't get this situation under control. The budget reconciliation process ought not to be used in such a way that the ultimate result is going to be an increase in our deficit and a further runup of the debt.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for this opportunity to speak. I again commend Senator Conrad from North Dakota for the effective and consistent leadership he has provided over the years in addressing the important question of the fiscal underpinnings of our national economy.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Stalking the Poor To Soothe the Affluent

Impoverished Americans are being set up as targets this

week in Congress's desperate attempt to find budget cuts

after four straight years of tax cuts for the affluent. House

Republicans propose harmful cuts in Medicaid access and

benefits, while forcing another 10 hours of work from welfare

families and giving states free rein to pile more draconian

reductions onto the most vulnerable citizens.

This gross political posturing does not even translate into

true savings. While imperiously proclaiming cuts of $50

billion over five years, Congressional leaders are determined

to fiddle more harmfully with the revenue half of the budget

and to pass an additional $70 billion in upper-bracket tax

cuts.

The proposals would have the federal government--supposedly

the protector of the neediest--give the states broad leeway

to restrict current benefits; to require co-payments by the

poor for medicine and for care by doctors and emergency

rooms; and to cut preventive care for children, who represent

half of the Medicaid roll. The food stamp program would

probably also be hit with a $1 billion cut, and even welfare

payments to elderly people who are sick would be crimped by

using federal bookkeeping tricks.

One particularly boneheaded proposal would severely cut the

funds for child support enforcement by $4 billion. This

program currently returns $4 in benefits from natural parents

for every dollar invested.

The proposals are so appalling that moderate Republicans

are even said to be considering a show of life on the floor.

In contrast, Senate Republicans are shaping cuts that would

spare the poor's Medicaid and other safety nets, while

finding savings in Medicare overpayments.

The Senate approach is obviously preferable, but it is also

rooted in the G.O.P.'s pre-election fiction that overspending

is the basic problem. The tax cuts should be scuttled and the

poor protected.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield.

Now, the Senator should yield on that point.

On questioning the comity of the Senate, the Senator should yield on that point.

Mr. President, on August 10 of this year the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, known as SAFETEA-LU. This new multi-year reauthorization of our Nation's surface transportation programs represents a carefully balanced package intended to address the needs of our roadways and transit systems. The Chairman of the Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, in his role as Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee, was instrumental in striking that balance. As the Chairman has recognized, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 was reported by the Appropriations Committee prior to passage of SAFETEA-LU, and therefore does not fully reflect the agreements reached in that piece of legislation. To take one specific example, it does not fund the Federal transit program at the level authorized by SAFETEA-LU for fiscal year 2006, falling $400 million short. The funding levels in SAFETEA-LU were the product of a great deal of negotiation, and I greatly appreciate the contributions my colleague from Alabama and my colleague from Missouri made to that discussion. I hope that in this, the first year of SAFETEA-LU's authorization, the agreements reached in SAFETEA-LU will be honored for all modes of transportation.

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

Mr. President, in the complex institutional framework established by our Founding Fathers, members of all three branches of our national government take an oath to support the Constitution. However, it falls uniquely to the Supreme Court of the United States to expound and interpret the Constitution and the laws passed pursuant to it so that our governing law remains true to the basic principles upon which the Nation was founded.

The Senate's role in giving advice and consent to the nomination of the men and women who serve on the Supreme Court for a life tenure is amongst the Senate's most important constitutional responsibilities.

The argument is made by some that the President is entitled to the confirmation of his or her nominee unless that person is shown to have a serious disqualification. On the contrary, it is my view that the Senate's duty to advise and consent on nominations is an integral part of the Constitution's system of checks and balances among our institutions of government. Nomination does not constitute an entitlement to hold the office.

Although all Presidential nominations require the most careful and independent review, judicial nominations differ from nominations to the executive branch in two important respects. Within the constitutional framework, the judiciary is a third coequal branch of government, independent of both the executive and legislative branches. Those who sit on the Federal bench receive lifetime tenure and are to render independent judicial decisions. In contrast, appointees to the executive branch are meant to carry out the program of the President who nominates them, and they serve only at the pleasure of the President or for limited tenure. The bar must, therefore, be set very high when we consider a judicial nomination, especially when the nomination is to the Supreme Court and, as in the matter pending before the Senate, to the position of Chief Justice of the United States.

While qualifications and intellect are important criteria, obviously, in considering a nomination to the Supreme Court, the Senate must also take into consideration the judicial philosophy and constitutional vision of any nominee for appointment to the Supreme Court. As Chief Justice Rehnquist, for whom Roberts clerked, wrote in 1959, well before he went on the Court:

[U]ntil the Senate restores its practice of thoroughly

informing itself on the judicial philosophy of a Supreme

Court nominee before voting to confirm him, it will have a

hard time convincing doubters that it could make effective

use of any additional part in the selection process.

Inquiring into a nominee's judicial philosophy does not mean discovering how he or she would decide specific cases. Rather, it seeks to ascertain the nominee's fundamental perspective on the Constitution: how it protects our individual liberties, ensures equal protection of the law, maintains the separation of powers and checks and balances. The Constitution is a living document. Its strength lies in its extraordinary adaptability and applicability over more than 200 years to conditions that the Framers could not have anticipated or even imagined.

The confirmation process provided Judge Roberts with an opportunity to outline his general approach to the Constitution in critical areas-- among them, the rights and liberties guaranteed to our citizens, the extent of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, and the balance of power among the three branches of government. Regrettably, he declined to do so, saying that he does not have an overarching judicial philosophy and comparing the role of a Justice to that of an umpire. The New York Times put it succinctly in an editorial:

In many important areas where Senators wanted to be

reassured that he would be a careful guardian of Americans'

rights, he refused to give any solid indication of his legal

approach.

The uncertainty arising from the hearings is compounded by the refusal of the administration to provide documents from Judge Roberts' service as principal Deputy Solicitor General, which members of the Judiciary Committee had requested in the course of carrying out their constitutional responsibility.

As a result, we must try to infer his underlying philosophy and views from the earlier documents made available to the committee. Those documents are not reassuring. I am deeply concerned that the documents we have from John Roberts raise questions about his approach and his thinking on such basic issues as voting rights, affirmative action, privacy, racial and gender equality, limitation on executive authority, and congressional power under the commerce clause.

Given the importance of the position of Chief Justice, in deciding whether to give consent to this nomination it is essential that it be an informed consent--an informed consent.

As the New York Times editorial pointed out:

That position is too important to entrust to an enigma,

which is what Mr. Roberts remains.

I will vote against confirming John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Could I ask what the parliamentary situation is?

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the leadership of Senator Reid and Senator Landrieu who have announced a package of proposals to be of assistance to the Hurricane Katrina victims so that the millions of people affected by the devastation along the gulf coast can begin to rebuild their lives.

The amendment which I have sent to the desk is only part of that broader proposal and deals with the housing situation which now confronts the victims of this tragic storm. Before going into the details of the proposal, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to those in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi who have lost loved ones or who are still searching for family members, neighbors, and friends. They need to know that the thoughts and prayers of the country are with them during these very difficult and trying times. We know that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their houses, their jobs, their belongings, indeed, their communities.

An effort is now underway in the Congress to come to their assistance. We know the road to recovery will not be easy and it will not be short, but we need to undertake these efforts immediately.

It was earlier estimated this week by FEMA officials and told to the President that 500,000 to a million people were rendered homeless by Hurricane Katrina and the deadly floods that followed the hurricane. In fact, yesterday's New York Times reported that as many as a million people are without housing. While the first job was to evacuate people, to get them food and water and to address their medical needs, in other words, to in effect save the lives of those who have been so heavily impacted, I think it is fair to say that the next job confronting us would be to find adequate housing for the survivors of Katrina.

The Americans displaced by the hurricane are scattered throughout the country now. I want to underscore the comments made by some of my colleagues earlier about the opening up of the arms of Americans across the country to take people in in this time of

emergency and the great need. Families coming out of the gulf coast are in effect living wherever they can find a roof over their heads, with relatives, with friends, with caring strangers who have volunteered to take them in, in shelters--for example, Houston opened up the Astrodome--on cruise ships or in tents. It is fair to say if one stops and thinks about this for a moment it is, at best, a temporary housing situation.

The hundreds of thousands of displaced families need to have access to stable housing so they can send their kids to school, start pulling their lives back together again, which is, of course, a pressing challenge, seek employment and chart out a future for themselves.

This amendment, recognizing the overwhelming need for stable housing, proposes an emergency housing voucher program of $3.5 billion, which would provide temporary rental assistance to more than 350,000 displaced families. It eliminates--I should say more accurately suspends for a limited period of time--many of the requirements and the restrictions that ordinarily apply to the housing voucher program. For example, any person or family displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina would be eligible to receive this much needed assistance; they could get a temporary housing voucher. This is without regard to their income situation. It recognizes the storm hit rich and poor alike and this is an effort to give them some immediate, short-term help so they can move out of the situation in which they find themselves.

The temporary rental vouchers would quickly and efficiently move families into stable housing across the country in the communities to which they have relocated. So it would give them an opportunity, with the voucher that would come to them, to find housing for themselves and their families. They could move out of the shelters. They could move out of temporary facilities. They could cease to live with relatives, friends or, indeed, strangers.

The rental assistance will be flexible and it will be easy to use. It will have payments sufficient so they can find suitable housing. The funds provided could be used anywhere in the country by those who have been impacted by the hurricane whose situation was created by the hurricane to pay for rent, security deposits, relocation expenses and moving expenses back to the affected areas at the appropriate time. So, if and when the time comes, they could return to their homes if that was the choice.

The assistance would be available for an initial period of 6 months. It is limited. A further 6 months is available, an extension, unless the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development finds that the assistance is no longer needed. But the maximum extent of these temporary housing vouchers would be 1 year. It would be 6 months, with a possibility of an extension.

The emergency program would be administered by HUD, which could operate the vouchers directly or provide the vouchers to local housing agencies, State and local governments or other entities, so long as the vouchers get out quickly to those in need.

We have a complicated problem here because the public housing authorities, of course, are locally based. The ones in areas where the people have been displaced are, in effect, out of business. There is no housing there by definition, since people have had to evacuate and leave. These people have now been moved to different parts of the country. We need to be able to get these vouchers to them and get them to them quickly.

We know people want to return to their neighborhoods, but it will probably be months before that is at all possible. Ordinarily, FEMA provides trailers and other housing after a disaster. That is how ordinarily it works. But the magnitude and scope of this disaster is unprecedented. FEMA has never had to deal with something of this magnitude, and it was the judgment, in putting this amendment together, that HUD had an expertise with respect to these rental vouchers. The emergency is a new dimension for HUD, but we thought that they have trained staff and could take over this responsibility and move it forward quickly.

I might note that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary Jackson, earlier in his career, has had very extensive experience directing public housing authorities--in Washington, DC; St. Louis, MO, and in Dallas, TX. So he has had a lot of experience actually on the ground with respect to housing. We think he could marshal the Department and its staff to respond in this situation.

This only begins to deal with the problem. I do not begin to assert that this represents a total or comprehensive solution to the housing challenge. But it enables us to get underway. Any family displaced by the hurricane would be eligible to receive a temporary voucher to pay for renting safe and decent housing, pay for rent, security, utility deposits, relocation expenses, and then eventually, we hope, moving expenses back to their permanent homes. These vouchers could be used anywhere across the country. It would not require a certification of income initially in order to get the voucher, and the families would be relieved of paying the rent, their portion of the rent which is required under the regular voucher program, until family members return to work. Once they return to work, the tenants would have to pay rental payments, as they do in the regular housing voucher program.

We are trying to cover all the bases here. We are trying to be very sensitive to the problem. We are trying to look at the problem through the eyes of those who have been struck by the hurricane, in terms of how they see it.

These people are now there. All kinds of makeshift housing is being found for them. But that, even on a temporary basis, does not represent an appropriate response. So we want to move them a little further down the path toward having a more normal living situation. We ease up a little bit about the amount of rent they can pay. We allow it to go a bit above the median instead of having to be below the median because we know finding rental units will be a difficult job.

As I said, this gives authorities to HUD they do not now have to directly administer the program so they can reach out to these former residents of the gulf coast who are now scattered out across the country. They can work with the housing agencies, State and local governments, and other entities. As I noted, it has a limited time provision. So it would enable us to, in effect, provide all of these people who have had to leave their homes an opportunity to put some stability into their lives. So they could then go on and deal with the other problems that are confronting them--the problems of getting their kids back in school, the problems of employment, the problems of meeting all of the other pressures that have come before us. But we have moved these people out. Some are being held in shelters. Others are being dispersed. But what is the next step for them? We think this represents the next step.

It is a targeted approach. The authorities it gives are temporary. The limitations and restrictions it eases and removes are done on a temporary basis, so it is not permanent in its eventual impact. But it does provide, for the next 6 to 12 months, a degree of stability and a degree of permanence which I think is very important in enabling the people who have been struck by this tragedy to help put their lives back together again. I very much hope, when the appropriate time comes, my colleagues will support this proposal.

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

Madam President,

I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on the transportation reauthorization measure. This legislation authorizes more than $286 billion--more than an $80 billion increase over TEA-21-- in funding over the 6 years for maintaining and improving our Nation's and State's highways, bridges and transit systems. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have considered this year and its enactment will help to restore the Federal commitment to our surface transportation infrastructure--the lifeblood for our economy as well as our quality of life.

As the ranking member on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee which crafted the transit portion of this legislation, I am proud that the agreement continues our commitment to a national transit

program and builds on the important achievements we made in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, of 1991, and TEA-21, enacted in 1998.

I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Shelby of the full committee for his efforts on the balanced budget amendment of the transit title and to Senators Allard and Reed, the chairman and ranking member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, for their hard work as well.

This legislation increase overall transit funding by 45 percent over the levels provided in the past 6 years to meet the growing needs for public transit infrastructure in all regions of the country. It provides the resources and planning tools to help ensure the continued development of an advanced, integrated transit system--a system that will cut air pollution, conserve fuel and reduce congestion on our roadways. This measure will go a long way to meeting the growing demand for transit in cities, towns, rural areas, and suburban jurisdictions across the country.

I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes two key provisions which I sponsored, the Transit in Parks Act, or TRIP, and an expansion of the commuter benefits program to encourage greater mass transit use by Federal employees in the National Capital Area. The new Federal transit grant initiative known as TRIP 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.

The expansion of the commuter benefits program will allow thousands more federal employees to take advantage of a guaranteed tax-free financial incentive of up to $105 per month, paid by their employer, towards the costs of transit commuting. It will give employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit. In addition, Federal agencies will be permitted to offer shuttle services for their employees to a public transit facility. This is particularly important to employees of the Food and Drug Administration who will be relocating to the new FDA headquarters at White Oak, MD.

Maryland's formula share of transit funding will grow by nearly $275 million over the 6 years--from $571 million to $846 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, D.C., Frederick and Brunswick, the Baltimore Light Rail system, and bus systems and para- transit systems for elderly and disabled people throughout Maryland.

This bill advances important existing and planned new transit projects in the Baltimore and Washington Metropolitan areas as well as in growing regions of our State. In the Washington area, it provides $100 million to enable the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA to purchase 52 new rail cars to help alleviate the severe overcrowding that the Metrorail system is currently experiencing. The new cars will enable WMATA to lengthen trains from 6 cars to 8 cars on the Metrorail System, utilize more of its design capacity, and give the authority increased ability to assist in case of an emergency. It provides $21 million to enable Montgomery County to complete the Silver Spring Transit Center--a major new transportation hub connecting MARC commuter trains, the Metrorail system, Ride-on and Metro buses and taxi services that is designed for integrated, mixed use private transit-oriented development. The Silver Spring Transit Center will not only enhance regional mobility, but will also help to promote smart growth and continue to strengthen the remarkable revitalization in Silver Spring's downtown business district. The measure also authorizes two new transit projects to help relieve traffic congestion and improve mobility in the region--the Bi-County Transitway, otherwise known as the Purple Line, connecting Bethesda to Silver Spring and extending to New Carrollton, and the Corridor Cities Transitway connecting the high-tech employment centers and mix-use developments in the 1-270 corridor to the Washington Metro and MARC Commuter rail.

In the Baltimore area, the measure authorizes $105.3 million for planning, environmental study, right of way, and initial construction of the Red and Green Line Transit projects as proposed in the Baltimore Region Transit System Plan. The Red Line--an East-West Transit Line that will extend for approximately 11 miles from the Social Security Administration Headquarters in Woodlawn to Fells Point--will provide service to areas in Baltimore currently not served by high quality transit. The Green Line would extend from the existing Metro system at the Johns Hopkins Hospital for approximately 5 miles northeast to Morgan State University. This authorization will guarantee that these projects continue to move forward in a timely fashion over the next 5 years. The measure also authorized the final $12.5 million in Federal funds needed to complete the double tracking of the Baltimore Light Rail Project and provides $5.2 million to enhance the Baltimore water taxi system.

And statewide, the bill authorizes continued funding for the MARC Capacity Expansion Program to enable the Maryland Department of Transportation to make needed capacity improvements, purchase new rolling stock, and enhance the MARC system. The bill also provides $25 million in statewide bus and bus facility grants that benefit towns and cities throughout the State. The measure also includes a provision reauthorizing the National Transportation Center, NTC, at Morgan State University over the next 4 years. The NTC conducts important research, education and technology transfer activities that support workforce development of minorities and women, and addresses urban transportation problems. Morgan State will receive $1 million each year to continue those activities.

For our Nation's roadways and bridges, this legislation authorizes nearly $184 billion in funding to enable States and localities to make desperately needed repairs and improvements. 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 programs--Interstate maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge and the Surface Transportation Program. Likewise, ISTEA's and TEA-21's basic principles of flexibility, intermodalism, strategic infrastructure investment, commitment to safety and inclusive decision- making processes are retained.

Maryland's share of highway funding will grow from an average of $443 million a year to $583 million a year or an average of $140 million more each year than was provided under TEA-21 for a total of more than $2.9 billion over 5 years. The measure provides funding for a number of important transportation improvement projects through all regions of our State. Senator Mikulski and I placed a high priority in this measure of ensuring that Maryland is ``BRAC'' ready as it prepares to handle an influx of new people in areas surrounding many of Maryland's military installations. In this regard, the measure provides $12.5 million to make sorely needed access improvements to MD 175 in the vicinity of Fort Meade, nearly $10 million for upgrading the US 40, MD 715 interchange at Aberdeen Proving Ground and the Edgewood Train Station, $15 million for construction of MD Route 4 at Suitland Parkway--an important access way to Andrews Air Force Base--and $6 million to design improvements to MD 210--a major regional commuting corridor that provides access to the Indian Head Naval Base in Charles County. The measure also provides $12 million for planning and construction of the Southern Maryland Commuter Initiative, a program of improvements in

Southern Maryland to relieve congestion by enhancing peak-period transit services for commuters, including individuals commuting to military bases in Southern Maryland. And it provides over $1.5 million for intermodal improvements at the Edgewood and Odenton MARC stations.

We also placed a premium on addressing those areas of Maryland that have experienced particularly severe congestion, bottlenecks or safety problems and provided more than $31 million to upgrade MD Route 404 and US 113 on the Eastern Shore, nearly $30 million to continue improvements to 1-70 in Frederick and to initiate upgrades of US 220 South of Cumberland in Western Maryland, $27 million for upgrades to MD 5 in Southern Maryland, and more than $22 million for roadway, interchange and bridge improvements in the Baltimore metroplitan area

We provided funds for several community-based projects around Maryland designed to expand travel choices and enhance the transportation experience of our citizens by improving the cultural, historic, aesthetic and environmental aspects of our transportation infrastructure, including funding to complete the Allegheny Highlands Trail in Western Maryland, the Fort McHenry and Assateague Visitors Centers, the Baltimore water-taxi system, and the roads and trails at Patuxent and Blackwater Refuges.

Before I close, I want to take a moment to note the hard work of the staff involved with this bill. This legislation has been years in the making and while it represents the efforts of many individuals there are several whom I would like to especially recognize. First, let me thank the staff of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby, particularly Sherry Little and John East, as well as Tewana Wilkerson of Senator Allard's staff, for their hard work and dedication to the transit program. Also, as I noted earlier, Senator Reed has worked closely with me throughout this process and I want to thank Neil Campbell of his staff for his significant contributions to this bill. On my own staff, I want to recognize Sarah Kline, Aaron Klein, and Charlie Stek for their tireless work and for their commitment to helping the people of Maryland. Kate Mattice, on detail from the Federal Transit Administration to my office last year, also made an important contribution to this legislation. Finally, I would like to extend particular thanks to Richard Steinmann for the exceptional assistance he has provided to the Banking Committee over the past 2 years while he has been on detail from the Federal Transit Administration.

Like any other complex and comprehensive piece of legislation, this bill has its share of imperfections. I think it was unfortunate that the administration was unwilling to snpport a higher level of investment in these programs, and as a result the measure that emerged from the conference is billions of dollars less than what the Senate passed a few months ago. And I am particularly disappointed that the measure does not contain the stormwater runoff mitigation provision that was approved by the Senate and is so important to helping States and localities meet water quality standards stemming from the stormwater impacts of Federal aid highways. 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, today I am introducing legislation to facilitate the orderly disposition of an 800 acre parcel of Federal property located in Laurel, Maryland, a portion of which is currently used by the District of Columbia as the Oak Hills Juvenile Detention and Commitment Center. The legislation is a companion to a measure which has been introduced in the House by Representative Benjamin Cardin.

The Oak Hill Youth Center, located adjacent to the National Security Agency and the Baltimore-Washington parkway, is a detention facility for juvenile offenders from the District of Columbia between the ages of 12 and 21. It has been plagued by facility and management problems for many years. The buildings at the center are in deplorable condition and fail to meet health and safety standards. Overcrowding, mismanagement, escapes, drug use and abuse of detainees at the center have been the subject of numerous investigations, press reports and lawsuits over the years, and are of great concern to juvenile justice advocates, families of detainees and local residents, alike. Nearly two decades ago, a consent decree stemming from the lawsuit Jerry M. v. District of Columbia, required the District to make improvements at the facility and address the chronic neglect of its adolescent detainees. Since the decree, ``sixty judicial orders, 44 monitoring reports and almost $3 million in court imposed fines'' have been issued in connection with the District's Youth Services Administration failure to fully comply with the decree, according to a July 2001 article in the Washington Post. Last year a report issued by the District's Inspector General's office found that, ``many of the same types of problems that resulted in the 1986 Jerry M. lawsuit still exist today . . .'' The report documented numerous security problems, health issues, deficiencies in management, failures to effectively maintain the safety of female youth housed at the center, and drugs being smuggled into the facility on a continual basis.

There is a consensus that the Oak Hill Youth Center should be shutdown. A Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform, established by Mayor Williams in August 2000, recommended in its final 2001 report that the Oak Hill Juvenile Detention center be closed and demolished. The Justice for DC Youth coalition, whose members include parents and juvenile justice advocates, has adamantly supported closing the existing Oak Hill facility and replacing it with a smaller, more homelike facility that is closer to the youth's homes.

This measure seeks to ensure the closure of the facility and the orderly disposition of the property, while addressing the concerns of Anne Arundel County, the NSA, the District of Columbia and all surrounding neighborhoods and residences. Above all, it would serve the youth currently being held at the facility by helping to place them in an environment that is more suitable for successful rehabilitation. I hope this measure can be acted upon quickly by the Congress and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.