Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I am pleased to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Lincoln Highway, which was officially routed through Washington, DC, on July 27, 1915, making it a true national highway. The construction of the highway was not only an important milestone in our Nation's history, but it has also served as a significant link in the development of Maryland's highway system.

The highway was first conceived in 1912, when most roads were little more than deeply rutted wagon trails. But with the rise of the automobile, the need for a transcontinental road had become increasingly apparent and ambitious plans were laid for this enormous undertaking.

The original proposed route for the highway ran from New York to California, but did not pass through Maryland or the Nation's Capital. COL Robert Harper, who at the time was President of the DC Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the Lincoln Highway Feeder Committee, lead a campaign to have the route altered to pass by the Lincoln Memorial. He approached Maryland Senator Blair Lee, whose seat I am proud to occupy, asking for help in the rerouting of the thoroughfare. Senator Lee wrote to President Woodrow Wilson and arranged a meeting between the President and Colonel Harper. That meeting led President Wilson to lobby on behalf of the proposed change in the route.

Through the efforts of President Wilson, Senator Lee, and Colonel Harper, the President of the Lincoln Highway Association was convinced to change the course of the highway so that it could pass through the Nation's Capital. This change brought additional visitors to both the State of Maryland and Washington, DC. In addition, the change preserved the spirit of President Abraham Lincoln and united the west and east coasts of the United States of America.

I am pleased to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Lincoln Highway a ``Road of Character'' and a ``Perpetual Memorial'' to President Lincoln which both commemorated a great leader and paved the way for the future of transportation in America.

Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation together with Senators Mikulski, Biden, Clinton, Murkowski, Murray, Wyden, Lautenberg, Schumer, and Durbin which would grant a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated. This legislation, which has passed the Senate in each of the past three Congresses, recognizes the 5.7 million Americans who fought and served during the Korean War and honors their sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and ideals of our Nation.

Today marks the 52nd Anniversary of the signing of the Military Armistice Agreement which officially ended armed hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. By the time the fighting ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or prisoners of war some of whom are still missing and more than 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.

When the North Korea People's Army swept across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea in June of 1950, 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.

The sacrifices made by these brave individuals are well described by an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial, which 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, VA, where its members decided to develop a national focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown substantially to a membership of over 17,000. A Federal charter would allow the Association to continue to 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, today I am once again introducing legislation together with Senators Mikulski, Biden, Clinton, Murkowski, Murray, Wyden, Lautenberg, Schumer, and Durbin which would grant a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated. This legislation, which has passed the Senate in each of the past three Congresses, recognizes the 5.7 million Americans who fought and served during the Korean War and honors their sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and ideals of our Nation.

Today marks the 52nd Anniversary of the signing of the Military Armistice Agreement which officially ended armed hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. By the time the fighting ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or prisoners of war some of whom are still missing and more than 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.

When the North Korea People's Army swept across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea in June of 1950, 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.

The sacrifices made by these brave individuals are well described by an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial, which 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, VA, where its members decided to develop a national focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown substantially to a membership of over 17,000. A Federal charter would allow the Association to continue to 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, today I am introducing a package of five measures to sustain and indeed renew the Federal commitment to restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, and Santorum.

In his 1984 State of the Union message, President Ronald Reagan called the Chesapeake Bay a ``special national resource'' and pledged $10 million a year for 4 years to ``begin the long, necessary effort to clean up'' the Bay. Today, despite more than 2 decades of effort and the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars on the part of Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector, the goal of a clean, restored Bay appears elusive. For the past 3 years, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has given the Chesapeake Bay a failing grade of 27 out of 100 on its annual report card--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be declared ``saved.'' The continued flood of sediments and nutrient pollution from sewage treatment plants, farms, urban runoff, and air deposition, combined with continued rapid growth in population and development in the watershed, is offsetting the progress that has been made to date in restoring the Bay. The Bay remains an ``impaired water body'' under the Clean Water Act, and Chesapeake Bay Program scientists are forecasting another summer of very low oxygen levels in the deep waters of the Bay, further stressing oysters, crabs, and other living resources. As author and naturalist Tom Horton points out in a recent National Geographic article,

``No one had illusions that the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program, a massive Federal-State restoration effort, begun in 1983 and unmatched anywhere in the world, would be quick or easy. But no one anticipated that 22 years later we would still be struggling.''

If the Bay is to be restored, we must redouble our efforts. Nitrogen pollution from all sources will have to be substantially reduced, thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant efforts must be made to restore living resources, and buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created. Likewise, assistance to community organizations, local governments, and educational institutions at all levels must be expanded dramatically to help foster local stewardship and entice more of the 16 million residents who live in the watershed to play active roles in the efforts to restore the Bay.

The five measures that we are introducing are an important part of, but by no means the entire, solution for addressing the Bay's problems. Earlier in this Congress, Members from the Bay-area States, from both parties, joined with me in a letter to President Bush, urging him to make restoration of Chesapeake Bay a top environmental priority and to commit $1 billion in his budget as a down-payment towards restoring the Bay's water quality. We called upon the Secretary of Agriculture to release $100 million provided under the 2002 Farm Bill for farmers to test new, innovative techniques for reducing agricultural nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Under Senator Warner's leadership, we succeeded in getting a provision in the Senate-passed SAFETEA legislation, which would provide more than $70 million for the Bay area States and local governments to mitigate the impacts of storm- water runoff from highways and related impervious surfaces. We have fought to prevent a significant cut in funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. And we have continued to press the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the Clean Water Act is fully enforced. All these are critical components of a more comprehensive effort on the part of the Federal, State and local governments and the private sector that will be needed over the course of the next few years to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Environmental Accountability Act of 2005, would reauthorize and enhance EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and would increase the program's accountability for improving the health of the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program, which has guided the clean-up effort for the past two decades, expires this year and must be reauthorized. Originally authorized in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and reauthorized in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program provides support and coordination for Federal, State, and local efforts in developing strategies and action plans, conducting system-wide monitoring and assessment, implementing projects to restore and protect the Bay and its living resources, and communicating with the public about the Bay and efforts to restore and protect it.

Last year, Senator Mikulski, Senator Warner, and I asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the Bay Program that would assess the overall restoration progress reported for the Bay; determine how progress is measured in the Bay watershed; and evaluate the effectiveness of Chesapeake Bay Program efforts to ensure that proper measures are being used. That study is nearing completion. Its preliminary findings recommend a number of improvements to the Program, which we have incorporated in this measure. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement provides goals for the Bay, but the GAO found that EPA has not developed a plan to achieve these goals. Bay restoration has also been hampered by a lack of interim goals and time frames against which progress can be assessed. The legislation we are introducing today requires the EPA Administrator to develop an implementation plan for reaching the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, including a timeline with specific annual goals for nutrient and sediment reduction, associated costs, and measures for assessing progress, and to prepare an annual report for Congress that describes the accomplishments of the previous year and the reductions likely to occur in the future. The legislation also directs the Administrator to publish and widely circulate annual ``tributary report cards'' that describe the progress made in achieving the nutrient and sediment reduction goals for each major tributary or tributary segment in the Bay watershed. These ``report cards'' will provide the public with a clear and accurate picture of the progress toward restoring the Bay, which is currently lacking. In addition, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is to submit an annual report on Chesapeake Bay Program funding.

The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th Congress, and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on that legislation.

Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, the overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus continues to rob the Bay of life-sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 40 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 100 million pounds from the current 275 million pounds to less than 175 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent.

In December 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Commission issued a report entitled ``Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay''; of the six most cost-effective strategies listed in that report, upgrading wastewater treatment plants is Number One. There are more than 300 significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These plants contribute almost 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year-- one-fifth--of the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter would remove as much as 30 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year, or 30 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant savings in energy usage, 20-30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, 5-15 percent. Furthermore, the benefits from upgrading sewage treatment plants have an immediate result on the Bay's water quality, unlike other methods that primarily affect nutrients in ground water and may take years to produce results. This legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading the plants with state- of-the-art nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs.

The third measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and

citizenship among the 16 million people who live in the watershed is necessary if all of the other efforts to save the Bay are to succeed. Expanding environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem but also to a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the environment, their community, and their role in society as responsible citizens.

One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement is to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. There are more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed, and despite important efforts by Bay area states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage of these students have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs.

This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next four years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program that we established several years ago.

The fourth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987 and 1997--almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments, resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, is less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling stormwater runoff, erosion and air pollution. Restoring and conserving forests is essential to sustaining the Bay ecosystem.

Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Service has worked closely with Federal, State, and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration, and stewardship activities can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; to promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; to assess the Bay's forest lands; and to provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances, and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands.

This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It requires an evaluation of the urban and rural forests in the watershed. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment, and planning efforts for urban, suburban and rural areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations, and citizen groups in conducting on-the-ground conservation projects. It establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000-square-mile watershed.

The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Monitoring, Education, Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the authorities of the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to address the goals and commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement with regard to living-resource restoration and education and training. It builds upon provisions contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, Program--the first federally funded environmental education program focused solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill; it establishes an aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab hatchery production; and it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program and authorizes a new restoration program for submerged aquatic vegetation.

To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of weather, tide, habitat, water-quality and other data collected and compiled by Federal, State, and local government agencies and academic institutions and to make this information more useful to resource managers, scientists, and the public, this bill also establishes an integrated observing system for the Chesapeake Bay. This system will build on and coordinate existing monitoring and observing activities in the Bay and its watershed, and will include development of an internet-based system for integrating and disseminating the vast amounts of information available.

These measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and supporting letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five measures to sustain and indeed renew the Federal commitment to restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, and Santorum.

In his 1984 State of the Union message, President Ronald Reagan called the Chesapeake Bay a ``special national resource'' and pledged $10 million a year for 4 years to ``begin the long, necessary effort to clean up'' the Bay. Today, despite more than 2 decades of effort and the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars on the part of Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector, the goal of a clean, restored Bay appears elusive. For the past 3 years, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has given the Chesapeake Bay a failing grade of 27 out of 100 on its annual report card--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be declared ``saved.'' The continued flood of sediments and nutrient pollution from sewage treatment plants, farms, urban runoff, and air deposition, combined with continued rapid growth in population and development in the watershed, is offsetting the progress that has been made to date in restoring the Bay. The Bay remains an ``impaired water body'' under the Clean Water Act, and Chesapeake Bay Program scientists are forecasting another summer of very low oxygen levels in the deep waters of the Bay, further stressing oysters, crabs, and other living resources. As author and naturalist Tom Horton points out in a recent National Geographic article,

``No one had illusions that the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program, a massive Federal-State restoration effort, begun in 1983 and unmatched anywhere in the world, would be quick or easy. But no one anticipated that 22 years later we would still be struggling.''

If the Bay is to be restored, we must redouble our efforts. Nitrogen pollution from all sources will have to be substantially reduced, thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant efforts must be made to restore living resources, and buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created. Likewise, assistance to community organizations, local governments, and educational institutions at all levels must be expanded dramatically to help foster local stewardship and entice more of the 16 million residents who live in the watershed to play active roles in the efforts to restore the Bay.

The five measures that we are introducing are an important part of, but by no means the entire, solution for addressing the Bay's problems. Earlier in this Congress, Members from the Bay-area States, from both parties, joined with me in a letter to President Bush, urging him to make restoration of Chesapeake Bay a top environmental priority and to commit $1 billion in his budget as a down-payment towards restoring the Bay's water quality. We called upon the Secretary of Agriculture to release $100 million provided under the 2002 Farm Bill for farmers to test new, innovative techniques for reducing agricultural nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Under Senator Warner's leadership, we succeeded in getting a provision in the Senate-passed SAFETEA legislation, which would provide more than $70 million for the Bay area States and local governments to mitigate the impacts of storm- water runoff from highways and related impervious surfaces. We have fought to prevent a significant cut in funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. And we have continued to press the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the Clean Water Act is fully enforced. All these are critical components of a more comprehensive effort on the part of the Federal, State and local governments and the private sector that will be needed over the course of the next few years to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Environmental Accountability Act of 2005, would reauthorize and enhance EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and would increase the program's accountability for improving the health of the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program, which has guided the clean-up effort for the past two decades, expires this year and must be reauthorized. Originally authorized in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and reauthorized in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program provides support and coordination for Federal, State, and local efforts in developing strategies and action plans, conducting system-wide monitoring and assessment, implementing projects to restore and protect the Bay and its living resources, and communicating with the public about the Bay and efforts to restore and protect it.

Last year, Senator Mikulski, Senator Warner, and I asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the Bay Program that would assess the overall restoration progress reported for the Bay; determine how progress is measured in the Bay watershed; and evaluate the effectiveness of Chesapeake Bay Program efforts to ensure that proper measures are being used. That study is nearing completion. Its preliminary findings recommend a number of improvements to the Program, which we have incorporated in this measure. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement provides goals for the Bay, but the GAO found that EPA has not developed a plan to achieve these goals. Bay restoration has also been hampered by a lack of interim goals and time frames against which progress can be assessed. The legislation we are introducing today requires the EPA Administrator to develop an implementation plan for reaching the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, including a timeline with specific annual goals for nutrient and sediment reduction, associated costs, and measures for assessing progress, and to prepare an annual report for Congress that describes the accomplishments of the previous year and the reductions likely to occur in the future. The legislation also directs the Administrator to publish and widely circulate annual ``tributary report cards'' that describe the progress made in achieving the nutrient and sediment reduction goals for each major tributary or tributary segment in the Bay watershed. These ``report cards'' will provide the public with a clear and accurate picture of the progress toward restoring the Bay, which is currently lacking. In addition, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is to submit an annual report on Chesapeake Bay Program funding.

The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th Congress, and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on that legislation.

Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, the overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus continues to rob the Bay of life-sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 40 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 100 million pounds from the current 275 million pounds to less than 175 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent.

In December 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Commission issued a report entitled ``Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay''; of the six most cost-effective strategies listed in that report, upgrading wastewater treatment plants is Number One. There are more than 300 significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These plants contribute almost 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year-- one-fifth--of the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter would remove as much as 30 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year, or 30 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant savings in energy usage, 20-30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, 5-15 percent. Furthermore, the benefits from upgrading sewage treatment plants have an immediate result on the Bay's water quality, unlike other methods that primarily affect nutrients in ground water and may take years to produce results. This legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading the plants with state- of-the-art nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs.

The third measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and

citizenship among the 16 million people who live in the watershed is necessary if all of the other efforts to save the Bay are to succeed. Expanding environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem but also to a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the environment, their community, and their role in society as responsible citizens.

One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement is to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. There are more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed, and despite important efforts by Bay area states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage of these students have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs.

This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next four years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program that we established several years ago.

The fourth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987 and 1997--almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments, resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, is less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling stormwater runoff, erosion and air pollution. Restoring and conserving forests is essential to sustaining the Bay ecosystem.

Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Service has worked closely with Federal, State, and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration, and stewardship activities can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; to promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; to assess the Bay's forest lands; and to provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances, and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands.

This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It requires an evaluation of the urban and rural forests in the watershed. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment, and planning efforts for urban, suburban and rural areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations, and citizen groups in conducting on-the-ground conservation projects. It establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000-square-mile watershed.

The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Monitoring, Education, Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the authorities of the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to address the goals and commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement with regard to living-resource restoration and education and training. It builds upon provisions contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, Program--the first federally funded environmental education program focused solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill; it establishes an aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab hatchery production; and it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program and authorizes a new restoration program for submerged aquatic vegetation.

To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of weather, tide, habitat, water-quality and other data collected and compiled by Federal, State, and local government agencies and academic institutions and to make this information more useful to resource managers, scientists, and the public, this bill also establishes an integrated observing system for the Chesapeake Bay. This system will build on and coordinate existing monitoring and observing activities in the Bay and its watershed, and will include development of an internet-based system for integrating and disseminating the vast amounts of information available.

These measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and supporting letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation, together with my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Landrieu, Warner and Allen to bolster efforts to restore the Anacostia River.

I spoke during the 108th Congress about the need for this legislation and I want to underscore the principal reasons today. The Anacostia River is a resource rich in history and with tremendous natural resource and recreational potential. It is home to 43 species of fish, some 200 species of birds, as well as more than 800,000 people whose neighborhoods border the watershed. Flowing through Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland and emptying into the Potomac at the District of Columbia, the watershed consists of a 176 square mile drainage area. One of the most urbanized watersheds in the United States, the Anacostia suffers a series of problems including trash, toxic pollution from urban runoff, sewage pollution from leaking sewer lines and combined sewer overflows, sediment pollution from erosion, and loss of fish and wildlife and recreational resources. It is a resource that has long been abused and neglected, but one that, in my view, can and must be protected and restored.

Efforts to begin rejuvenating the Anacostia watershed began formally in 1987 when the State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and the District of Columbia signed an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement. The Agreement authorized the Washington Area Council of Governments, COG, to manage the restoration program and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to protect the resources and facilitate public participation. COG created an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, AWRC, to coordinate and implement restoration projects throughout the watershed. Since that time, local, State, and Federal Government agencies, as well as the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Anacostia Citizens Advisory Committee and other environmental organizations and dedicated private citizens have contributed significant resources toward re-establishing the Anacostia watershed ecosystem.

Thanks to this cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local and private effort, we are beginning to make some progress in restoring the watershed. A Six Point Action Plan was signed in 1991 setting ambitious and broad-reaching goals for the river's restoration. In 1993 we celebrated the successful restoration of 32 acres of emergent tidal wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers at Kenilworth marsh. The project has shown significant results in improving tidal water flow through the marsh, and reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the area and demonstrates what can be achieved in urban river restoration. There have been other success stories as well in urban stream restoration in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, removing barriers to fish passage and reforestation efforts throughout the watershed, to name only a few. In 1999, a new Anacostia Watershed Agreement was signed to strengthen the regional governmental commitment to Anacostia restoration. There are today more than 60 local, State and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration. And more than $100 million has been spent cleaning up the river. There is clearly much for which we can all be proud. But the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The Anacostia is still one of North America's most endangered and threatened rivers. It is designated one of three ``regions of concern'' for toxics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The legislation which we are introducing authorizes more than $200 million in Federal assistance over the next 10 years to restore the Anacostia. Of these funds, $170 million is authorized to address the biggest pollution problems in the watershed--storm water runoff and failing waste-water infrastructure. As the builder of much of

the original infrastructure and a major user, the Federal Government has an important responsibility to help stem the flow of this pollution and comply with the Clean Water Act. The remaining funds will allow the Administrator of EPA, working together with an ``Anacostia Watershed Council'' of State and local officials, to develop a comprehensive environmental protection and resource management plan for the watershed, for several Federal agencies to join in the implementation of the plan.

The Anacostia River suffers from centuries of impacts and changes. Once a healthy, thriving river, it is today severely degraded. This legislation is urgently needed if we are to achieve the goal of making the Anacostia and its tributaries swimmable and fishable again. It is my hope that provisions of this measure will be included in the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation, together with my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Landrieu, Warner and Allen to bolster efforts to restore the Anacostia River.

I spoke during the 108th Congress about the need for this legislation and I want to underscore the principal reasons today. The Anacostia River is a resource rich in history and with tremendous natural resource and recreational potential. It is home to 43 species of fish, some 200 species of birds, as well as more than 800,000 people whose neighborhoods border the watershed. Flowing through Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland and emptying into the Potomac at the District of Columbia, the watershed consists of a 176 square mile drainage area. One of the most urbanized watersheds in the United States, the Anacostia suffers a series of problems including trash, toxic pollution from urban runoff, sewage pollution from leaking sewer lines and combined sewer overflows, sediment pollution from erosion, and loss of fish and wildlife and recreational resources. It is a resource that has long been abused and neglected, but one that, in my view, can and must be protected and restored.

Efforts to begin rejuvenating the Anacostia watershed began formally in 1987 when the State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and the District of Columbia signed an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement. The Agreement authorized the Washington Area Council of Governments, COG, to manage the restoration program and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to protect the resources and facilitate public participation. COG created an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, AWRC, to coordinate and implement restoration projects throughout the watershed. Since that time, local, State, and Federal Government agencies, as well as the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Anacostia Citizens Advisory Committee and other environmental organizations and dedicated private citizens have contributed significant resources toward re-establishing the Anacostia watershed ecosystem.

Thanks to this cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local and private effort, we are beginning to make some progress in restoring the watershed. A Six Point Action Plan was signed in 1991 setting ambitious and broad-reaching goals for the river's restoration. In 1993 we celebrated the successful restoration of 32 acres of emergent tidal wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers at Kenilworth marsh. The project has shown significant results in improving tidal water flow through the marsh, and reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the area and demonstrates what can be achieved in urban river restoration. There have been other success stories as well in urban stream restoration in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, removing barriers to fish passage and reforestation efforts throughout the watershed, to name only a few. In 1999, a new Anacostia Watershed Agreement was signed to strengthen the regional governmental commitment to Anacostia restoration. There are today more than 60 local, State and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration. And more than $100 million has been spent cleaning up the river. There is clearly much for which we can all be proud. But the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The Anacostia is still one of North America's most endangered and threatened rivers. It is designated one of three ``regions of concern'' for toxics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The legislation which we are introducing authorizes more than $200 million in Federal assistance over the next 10 years to restore the Anacostia. Of these funds, $170 million is authorized to address the biggest pollution problems in the watershed--storm water runoff and failing waste-water infrastructure. As the builder of much of

the original infrastructure and a major user, the Federal Government has an important responsibility to help stem the flow of this pollution and comply with the Clean Water Act. The remaining funds will allow the Administrator of EPA, working together with an ``Anacostia Watershed Council'' of State and local officials, to develop a comprehensive environmental protection and resource management plan for the watershed, for several Federal agencies to join in the implementation of the plan.

The Anacostia River suffers from centuries of impacts and changes. Once a healthy, thriving river, it is today severely degraded. This legislation is urgently needed if we are to achieve the goal of making the Anacostia and its tributaries swimmable and fishable again. It is my hope that provisions of this measure will be included in the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. President, I am pleased to commend Centennial High School in Howard County, MD, for its fine performance on this year's ``It's Academic'' quiz show. After many hours of practice and four rounds of competition, Centennial has emerged as the 2004-2005 Baltimore-area ``It's Academic'' champion.

The team of Jeff Amoros, Michael Fasulo, Marin Lolic, and Seth Manoff, with the assistance of their coach John Cheek, took first place out of 81 teams that competed from both public and private schools across the State of Maryland. In its final match, Centennial defeated two formidable foes in Calvert Hall College High School and Oakland Mills High School.

``It's Academic'', which is telecast every Saturday morning during the school year on WJZ-TV, channel 13, has been quizzing Maryland students since 1961. In fact, according to the ``2005 Guinness Book of World Records'', it is the world's longest running quiz show. For Maryland students, ``It's Academic'' provides an opportunity to challenge not only their own knowledge of math, science, literature, government and history, but also how their knowledge stacks up against students around the State. This year, Centennial's team demonstrated enormous skill and erudition. Congratulations to Jeff, Michael, Marin, Seth and Coach Cheek on a wonderful accomplishment.

Mr. President, on May 7, former Congressman Peter W. Rodino, Jr. died at his home in West Orange, NJ, at the age of 95. At the time of his death he was professor emeritus at the Seton Hall University School of Law, where he had continued to lecture until just a few months ago. He was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from New Jersey's 10th congressional district in 1948 and went on to serve 20 terms, retiring in 1989. Throughout his long career he faithfully served the people of his district, and our Nation. It was my great privilege to serve on the House Committee on the Judiciary under his chairmanship, and I shall remember him always as ``Chairman.''

In the Congress, Peter Rodino served on the House Committee on the Judiciary for 24 years before becoming its chairman, quite unexpectedly, in 1973. At just that time it fell to the Judiciary Committee to determine whether the President had acted in violation of fundamental principles of our Constitution and, if so, to undertake the first step in the impeachment procedures that the Constitution sets out. No one understood better than Peter Rodino the magnitude of the challenge. It was, he often said, an ``awesome responsibility.''

As a very junior Member of the House of Representatives, just beginning my second term, it was my great responsibility to serve on the Judiciary Committee under Chairman Rodino during the impeachment inquiry. In a speech on the floor of the House in February, 1974, he set the tone for the

work the committee was about to undertake: ``Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of American people, and their children after them, will say: `That was the right course. There was no other way.' ''

Chairman Rodino held the committee to those standards. As Michael T. Kaufman wrote in the New York Times on May 9, he proceeded with ``great patience, caution, enormous energy, and fairness above all.'' In his role as chairman, Peter Rodino saw himself as ``teacher, negotiator, leader and symbol,'' striving to achieve ``a spirit of fairness and bipartisanship.'' In this he was successful: members of the committee drew together over the course of the inquiry, approving three articles of impeachment on strong bipartisan votes and, ultimately, reaching unanimity on the need to move the impeachment process forward.

Of his service during the impeachment inquiry, Chairman Rodino told his biographer, Gerald Pomper, ``I was just the same Peter Rodino I've been all the time from the very first day I came to the Congress.'' Indeed he was. Throughout his years in the Congress he worked hard, and he brought to his work both a bright and hopeful vision for our country and great skill as a legislator. His legislative achievements were remarkable: major contributions to the great Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s--he served as floor manager of the Civil Rights Act of 1966; passage of landmark fair housing and fair-employment practices legislation; immigration reform that overturned the decades-old system of rigid, country-based quotas. Later he wrote the Voting Rights Extension Act of 1982, and he played a leading role in establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

It can be said of Peter Rodino that in his life he embraced the American experience in the 20th century. The child of Italian immigrants, born and raised in the Little Italy neighborhood in Newark, NJ, he earned his law degree over a period of 10 years by working days and taking classes at night. Well before Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into World War II, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, served in the North African and Italian campaigns, received one of the first battlefield commissions, was awarded the Bronze Star, and retired with the rank of captain. Upon leaving the Army, he entered the Congress; upon retiring from the Congress, he joined the faculty of the Seton Hall Law School. There he remained until his death, attentive to the end to his students and colleagues. He believed in our democratic institutions and their capacity to improve the lives of our people. ``There was not a single day of his professional life,'' according to the Dean of Seton Hall Law School, ``when he didn't carry a copy of the Constitution in his pocket.'' The country will forever be grateful to him.

Chairman Rodino was remembered by his family, friends, colleagues at Seton Hall Law School and former colleagues in the U.S. House of Representative in a very moving ceremony at St. Lucy Church, Newark NJ, on May 16, 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the homily of the Reverend Nicholas S. Gengaro, Chaplain of the Seton Hall Law School, and the eulogy delivered by Paula A. Franzese, Peter W. Rodino at the Seton Hall Law School, be printed in the Record.

Before my distinguished colleague from Delaware leaves the floor, I want to commend him for his perseverance in pressing this issue. This is clearly not the first time he has brought this matter to our attention. I want to underscore what he said in closing. Obviously, there is a threat, and we need to address this threat. This is the opportunity to do it.

Rail, transit--we know they are high on the target list. The GAO actually did a study. One-third of all terrorist events that occurred have involved transit systems around the world. Last year, in fact, we passed legislation, an authorization for transit to do $3.5 billion over 3 years--$1.1 billion this year. An amendment to come later, Senator Shelby's amendment, addresses that and tries to provide appropriations at the authorized level.

The rail also cries out for an appropriate appropriation, which is contained in the Byrd amendment that is part of this package we are going to be considering here. But the Senator from Delaware is absolutely correct. This is our chance to provide the resources so we can begin to do the obvious things that need to be done. There is a whole list of them. Every one of them is common sense. None of them is sort of a potential waste of money. All the transit people, the rail people tell us we need to do these things, and if we can do these things, it would substantially enhance security.

It wouldn't guarantee security. We live in a world where we can't guarantee security. But it would enhance it, surely.

Right.

The Senator is absolutely correct. The infrastructure we are trying to work with is an infrastructure from a previous century. That alone needs to be significantly improved.

Actually, the British are confronting that problem now. One of their difficulties is that this deep tunnel, from many years ago, access to it is extremely limited.

We have to get started. That is what it comes down to. We have to get smart. These amendments, the Byrd amendment and the Shelby amendment, offer us a chance to take a significant step in order to enhance our capabilities.

I thank the Senator for his very strong statement.

It is not in our committee.

The Amtrak is not in our committee.

Correct.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I thank the Chair.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I will be brief. I want to rise again in very strong support of the amendment that Senator Shelby the chairman of the Banking Committee has proposed, and also to underscore, as I just did in my discussion with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, that I support the Byrd amendment which is also before us, which encompasses inner-city rail as well as transit. The amendment offered by Chairman Shelby deals only with those items under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee.

The point I want to underscore is, this body unanimously passed, last year on October 1, the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. That bill authorized $3.5 billion in 3 years for the security of our Nation's mass transportation system, and of that amount $1.16 billion was scheduled for fiscal year 2006, which would begin to address the critical security needs that exist in the thousands of public transportation systems in our country.

The amendment offered by Chairman Shelby seeks to bring the appropriation in line with the Senate-approved authorized level-- approved by the Senate unanimously, brought out of the Banking Committee unanimously. Clearly, after the tragic attack in London last Thursday, which has now claimed 52 lives and over 700 injured, we need to fully fund transit security at the Senate-authorized level.

This body understood the problem last year. We established these authorization levels. We now need to provide the appropriations to carry through on the programs that are proposed to enhance transit security.

In 2002, GAO found that over one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide were against transit systems. Yet the funding for transit and rail security has been grossly inadequate. Those systems have not been able to implement necessary security improvements, including those that have been identified by the Department of Homeland Security.

The Baltimore Sun wrote in an editorial on Friday:

Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has spent

$18 billion on aviation security. Transit systems, which

carry 16 times more passengers daily, have received about

$250 million. That's a ridiculous imbalance.

I could not agree more. There are obvious necessities that are needed--security cameras, radios, training, extra security personnel. Those are not extravagant requests.

Let me give you one example right here in the Washington metropolitan area. Washington Metro's greatest security need is a backup control operations center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration in its initial security assessment then identified again by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security assessment. This critical need remains unaddressed because it has not been funded. We need to pass these amendments in order to provide the funding.

The same situation exists in transit systems across the country. We must not make this mistake. We need to put the resources out there so the transit and rail systems across the Nation can begin to address the serious potential targets which exist for terrorist attack.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the chairman of the Banking Committee which deals with transit security, and I join with others in supporting the amendment that has been offered by Senator Byrd which encompasses not only that security but rail security as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the next amendment we will vote on is the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, which tries to meet the undertaking this body made last year in passing an authorization for transit security money. That tries to address the problem. This amendment makes some small contribution. I intend to vote no on this amendment. I hope Members support the Shelby amendment in due course.

Mr. President, I offered an amendment that would ensure the continued funding and operation of the United States Fire Administration. I offered this amendment on behalf of myself and the three other Cochairmen of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, Senators DeWine, Biden, and McCain, as well as Senators Mikulski, Murray, Feingold, Corzine, and Stabenow.

This amendment simply designates $52.6 million in funds for the United States Fire Administration, USFA. This amount is equal to the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request, and represents a slight increase

of $1.3 million over last year's funding level.

The amendment calls for no additional funding in the underlying bill, and thus requires no offset. USFA has traditionally been funded through the Department's preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery account. However, without a congressional allocation or line item for USFA in the Department's annual appropriations bill, Congress has failed to adequately acknowledge its continued support for the use of these funds. As a result, there is annual confusion and uncertainty regarding the level of funding USFA will ultimately receive. This amendment is therefore simply an exercise in good government, providing transparency and accountability in how we allocate our limited homeland security funds.

This amendment is also quite modest. In 2003, the Senate unanimously approved legislation to reauthorize USFA through fiscal year 2008. This legislation, which was signed into law by the President on December 6, 2003, calls for $64.85 million in the coming fiscal year for USFA's operations. While I believe USFA should ideally receive funding at this fully authorized level, this amendment is a bipartisan compromise that will ensure that, at a minimum, the agency will be able to maintain its essential functions.

At a time when there are sharp disagreements over our homeland security priorities, the U.S. Fire Administration remains a proven investment, providing critical training and resources to our Nation's first responders. In this regard, I was pleased that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in his remarks yesterday unveiling the Department's Second Stage Review Results, affirmed USFA's important role in the transformed Department. In designating USFA as a constituent element of the Department's new Preparedness Directorate, Secretary Chertoff noted the Fire Administration's expertise, declaring that this move would ``strengthen our linkages and our preparation within the fire services.''

In 1973, a landmark report entitled America Burning was produced by the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control. Among many other findings and recommendations, America Burning called for the creation of a national agency dedicated to serving and improving the fire services. In response to that report, Congress created such an agency in 1974, which would later become what we now know as the United States Fire Administration. USFA provides training, guidance, and support to firehouses around the country from those who understand them best--fire service professionals themselves. USFA's current Administrator, R. David Paulison, is a terrific example of the agency's expertise. Chief Paulison, who has ably led the agency for the past 4 years, is a 30-year veteran of the fire services and former chief of the Miami-Dade County Fire Department.

Among USFA's most vital functions is its role as the Nation's premier training center for our fire service leaders. The National Fire Academy is the centerpiece of USFA's training programs and has educated an estimated 1.4 million fire leaders since its first class was held in 1975. Although headquartered in Emmitsburg, Maryland, the Academy conducts courses all over the Nation in order to maximize the number of fire leaders who can benefit from its instructors' expertise. Significantly, the Academy now offers training and coursework in the National Incident Management System, NIMS, and the National Response Plan, NRP, two critical elements of our overall homeland security strategy. USFA also houses the Emergency Management Institute, EMI, which offers a full complement of courses and programs for state, local, and tribal emergency management officials from across the country.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security 3 years ago, there have been grave concerns in the first responder community that efforts were underway in the Department to reduce the role of USFA, as well as its support, perhaps culminating in the agency's eventual demise. This past February, the International Association of Fire Chiefs held a summit meeting of 17 major fire service organizations to address concerns about USFA's funding, and its future within the Department of Homeland Security.

On April 8, 2005, the findings of that summit were unanimously endorsed by the 45 national fire groups that comprise the National Advisory Committee of the Congressional Fire Services Institute. Among the goals in this agreement was the following:

[T]he fire service recommends that both the President's

budget and the DHS's appropriations bills have a separate

line item for the USFA. Currently, the USFA funding is

included in the ``Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and

Recovery'' account, and it is hard to determine exactly how

much money has been appropriated for the USFA. Since Congress

specifically authorizes funding for the USFA in a separate

bill, there also should be a line item in the president's

budget and appropriations bills to hold the President and

Congress accountable to the authorization levels that they

approved.

This amendment would achieve this reasonable and modest goal, which was unanimously and vigorously supported by our Nation's major fire service groups.

This amendment is endorsed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the Congressional Fire Services Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from IAFC President Bob DiPoli be printed in the Record.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 1224

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. The need to improve security throughout our Nation's public transportation system has been apparent for quite some time. In fact, last year in the committee, I worked closely with Chairman Shelby and with Senator Reed of Rhode Island who have been leaders on this issue both within the committee and throughout the Senate, on the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

That legislation came out of the committee unanimously and was approved in the Senate last October 1 by unanimous consent. So every Member of this body, in effect, validated that legislation. That bill authorized $3.5 billion over 3 years in security for our Nation's mass transportation systems. Of that amount, $1.16 billion was scheduled for fiscal year 2006.

This funding level was authorized to begin to address the critical security needs that exist throughout the thousands of public transportation systems in our country. The amendment offered by the chairman of the committee, which I have joined in cosponsoring, along with my able colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, and others, seeks to provide the appropriations level to sustain the authorized level, which this body has heretofore approved.

In the wake of the tragic attack in London last Thursday, which has claimed over 50 lives and left hundreds more injured, we clearly need to more fully fund transit security, and going to the previously Senate-authorized level seems to make imminent good sense. The Senate anticipated this problem in the authorization, and the committee brought out well-considered legislation which this body passed unanimously. We have not provided the wherewithal to support the authorization, and this amendment seeks to do exactly that.

The threat to transit is not new. We have had terrorist attacks against transit systems in Moscow, South Korea, and London. In fact, in 2002, the GAO found that one-third of all terrorist attacks worldwide were against transit systems. Despite this significant threat, security funding has been grossly inadequate.

Our Nation's transit systems have been unable to implement necessary security improvements, including those that have been identified by the Department of Homeland Security. In an editorial last Friday, the Baltimore Sun stated that, ``Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has spent $18 billion on aviation security. Transit systems, which carry 16 times more passengers daily, have received about $250 million. That is a ridiculous imbalance.''

They go on to state:

Transit officials estimate it would take $6 billion to make

buses and rail systems safe. And Congress has in the past

considered authorizing $3.5 billion over three years for the

same purpose.

That is a direct reference to the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which, as has been noted, passed the Senate unanimously.

These moneys will be used for such necessities as: security cameras, radios, front-line employee training, and extra security personnel. They are not extravagant requests.

Let me give one example of a critical need right here with respect to Washington's Metro. Their greatest security need is a backup control operations center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration in its initial security assessment and then identified again by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security assessment. This critical need remains unaddressed because it has been unfunded. This amendment provides the funding to match what was set out in the authorization.

We know that transit systems are potential targets for terrorist attacks. We know the vital role these systems play in our Nation's economic and security infrastructure. We can wait no longer to address these critical security needs of the transit systems throughout the Nation. This amendment begins the important process of providing these critically needed funds.

Again, I thank the able chairman of the committee for his excellent leadership on the transit security issue and Senator Reed for his strong and continued commitment on this issue and his perseverance over a sustained period of time. I thank all of our colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Baltimore Sun of July 8 referenced in my statement be printed in full at the end of my statement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 1046.

Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the managers of the legislation for accepting this amendment. The amendment provides for a study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail as a national historic trail. I was joined in this by my able colleague, Senator Mikulski, and by the two Virginia Senators, Mr. Warner and Mr. Allen.

The year 2007--less than 2 years from now--marks the 400th Anniversary of the Founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in America.

The critical role that Captain John Smith played in the founding of Jamestown and in exploring the Chesapeake Bay region during the years 1607 to 1609 was a defining period in the history of our Nation. His contemporaries and historians alike, credit Smith's strong leadership with ensuring the survival of the fledgling colony and laying the foundation for the future establishment of our Nation.

With a dozen men in a 30-foot open boat, Smith's expeditions in search of food for the new colony and the fabled Northwest Passage took him nearly 3,000 miles around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from the Virginia capes to the mouth of the Susquehanna. On his voyages and as President of the Jamestown Colony, Captain Smith became the first point of contact for scores of Native American leaders from around the Bay region. His relationship with Pocahontas is now an important part of American

folklore. Smith's notes describing the indigenous people he met and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem are still widely studied by historians, environmental scientists, and anthropologists.

The remarkably accurate maps and charts that Smith made of his voyages into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries served as the definitive map of the region for nearly a century. His voyages, as chronicled in his journals, ignited the imagination of the Old World, and helped launch an era of adventure and discovery in the New World. Hundreds, and then thousands of people aspired to settle in what Smith described as one of ``. . . the most pleasant places known, for large and pleasant navigable rivers, heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a place for man's habitation.'' Even today, his vivid descriptions of the Bay's abundance still serve as a benchmark for the health and productivity of the Bay.

With the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown quickly approaching, the designation of this route as a national historic trail would be a tremendous way to celebrate an important part of our Nation's story and serve as a reminder of John Smith's role in establishing the colony and opening the way for later settlements in the New World. It would also give recognition to the Native American settlements, culture and natural history of the 17th-century Chesapeake. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail, this new historic watertrail will inspire generations of Americans and visitors to follow Smith's journeys, to learn about the roots of our nation and to better understand the contributions of the Native Americans who lived within the Bay region.

Equally important, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Watertrail can serve as a national outdoor resource by providing rich opportunities for education, recreation, and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 millions Americans living in the Bay's watershed, but for visitors to this area. The water trail would be the first National Watertrail established in the United States and would allow voyagers in small boats, cruising boats, kayaks and canoes to travel from the distant headwaters to the open Bay--an accomplishment that would inspire today's explorers and would generate national and international attention and participation. The Trail would complement the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Initiative and help highlight the Bay's remarkable maritime history, its unique watermen and their culture, the diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary.

This proposed trail enjoys bipartisan support in the Congress and in the States through which the trail passes. The proposed trail has been endorsed by the Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The measure is also strongly supported by The Conservation Fund, Izaak Walton League, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission.

But designating a new National Historic Trail is essentially a two- step process. First, Congress must authorize the Department of Interior to undertake a study of the national historic significance of the proposed trail and the feasibility of designating such a trail. National Historic Trails must meet 3 criteria: they must be nationally significant; have a documented route through maps or journals; and provide for recreational opportunities. Once the study is complete-- usually a 3-year process that involves public hearings and input--a recommendation is submitted to the Secretary of Interior to designate the trail and Congress must enact legislation to authorize the trail.

We hope to make up some of the time by the work that is already underway by public and private sector organizations to document the history of Jamestown and John Smith's travels.

However, unless we can get this provision enacted shortly, the Park Service will be unable to complete the study and make recommendations on the proposed trail in conjunction with that anniversary.

Mr. President, we hope to get this study done before the Jamestown celebrations. In 2007, they are scheduled for celebrations at Jamestown. It will be a big national event. The Captain John Smith Watertrail is obviously very much connected to the Jamestown settlement. It involves, of course, the Chesapeake Bay. We are very hopeful this study will prove the feasibility of designating this water trail. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in putting this idea forward. Again, I thank the managers of the legislation for accepting the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry: Was the amendment agreed to?

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join in cosponsoring this amendment. I thank the Chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this amendment forward. It is an enormously important contribution to the effort that is underway now to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, by placing his memorial between President Roosevelt's Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall.

I thank the Senators for their kind comments. My dear friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, and I worked together on this project to help move it along. It has had overwhelming support in the Congress and in the country, but raising the money has been a difficult proposition. Let's be very clear about this--an enormous effort has gone into bringing this memorial to fruition and significant moneys have been raised.

While we are not yet there, this amendment will provide a tremendous boost to the fundraising effort. It shows clearly the support of the Congress. Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, by coming forward with the amendment, at this critical time, have given this entire effort an impetus, which will bring it to a successful conclusion.

Interestingly enough, I, too, was there when Martin Luther King gave his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, that Mr. Warner, the able Senator from Virginia, referred to earlier. It was clearly a historic occasion that helped to shape the nature of our country for the better--much for the better. Dr. King fought to establish the proposition that people should be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin. He enunciated that principle time and time again.

The other thing he did was he advocated his position in a nonviolent way. He asserted that in a democratic society, these goals could be achieved through peaceful means, through nonviolent means. He channeled the energy and the commitment that was devoted toward achieving racial equality in this country into peaceful paths. And our country has been much the better for his efforts.

So much work has gone into this Memorial--first in getting it approved and then in finding the location for it on the National Mall. But, it has been worth the effort because when schoolchildren come to the Nation's Capital in the year's to come, part of their visit to Washington will involve a trip to the Martin Luther King Memorial.

The plans that have been prepared are quite impressive. They will have an opportunity to visit that Memorial and to reflect upon the contribution which Dr. King made to our Nation: the healing he brought about, the realization of the American dream, that all of our people-- all--have an opportunity to participate and to advance themselves and their families.

So I join with my colleagues. I thank them for their very kind remarks. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia reminding us of the effort that went into helping bring us to this day. I especially again thank Senators Cochran and Byrd for coming forward with this amendment at a very critical time, to give an impetus to the effort to do the fundraising that is necessary to build this Memorial and to have, in effect, this national treasure on the Mall.

Dr. King's statue is, of course, here in the Capitol, as we know. It is fitting now that we move beyond the Capitol and create this Memorial on the Mall in recognition of all he stood for and what he represented in terms of realizing the words and ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

I thank my colleagues very much.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when Sol M. Linowitz died recently, at the age of 91, this country lost a distinguished citizen and his family lost a loving, wise and generous husband, father, brother and grandfather. Those who had the privilege of working with him--and there are many of us--lost a colleague and wise counselor and, above all, a dear friend.

It says much about Sol Linowitz that he opened his 1985 memoir, The Making of a Public Man, with a citation from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: ``It is required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not to have lived.'' That is precisely what Sol did over the course of what his brother, Bob Linowes, described--too modestly--as Sol's ``exemplary and productive life.'' Indeed, it can be said of Sol Linowitz that almost from his birth in 1913 until his death earlier this year, he reflected in his own life the highest ideals, aspirations and achievements of 20th- century America.

Sol Linowitz was the eldest of Joseph and Rose Linowitz's four sons. Both his parents had come to this country as adolescents from what was then the Russian empire. They met and married in this country, settling in Trenton, NJ, and raising their family there. Of his parents Sol has written simply but eloquently: they ``were not highly educated people; they had come across the ocean . . . bringing their hopes and little more . . . their life was a struggle.'' From his parents he received the priceless gift of principles by which to live his own life: the fundamental importance of education; values taught by example, not rhetoric; people helping others in need. He grew up in a neighborhood of families similar to his own, except that they had come from Ireland, and Italy and in an earlier time and under different conditions, from Africa. He could see that his parents ``most of all loved and trusted this country.''

On the strength of advice from a high school teacher and a modest scholarship, Sol Linowitz went to Hamilton College, where he went on to become the Class of 1935 Salutatorian. Advice from a distinguished Hamilton alumnus, Elihu Root, led him to law school; when he told Root that he was thinking of becoming a rabbi or studying law, Root replied: ``Become a lawyer. I have found that a lawyer needs twice as much religion as a minister or rabbi.'' Once again, this time at Cornell Law School, he rose to the top of his class, finishing first and serving as editor-in-chief of the Cornell Law Quarterly. A number of his law- school friends, like Senator Edmund Muskie and Secretary of State William Rogers, went on to become eminent public servants and practitioners of the law. But Sol wrote with typical understatement in his memoir that ``the most significant social contact'' of his years at Cornell was Toni Zimmerman, a Cornell student. All who know Toni Zimmerman Linowitz would certainly agree. Sol and Toni were married for 65 years.

Sol chose to practice law in Rochester with the small family firm of Sutherland and Sutherland. Following government and military service during World War II, he and Toni returned to Rochester. Sol resumed his law practice. At the same time, he entered into the sustained engagement in community and national affairs that was to illuminate his entire life.

Sol Linowitz's commitment to public service extended far beyond his government service, which began with his OAS ambassadorship, in 1969. He found an extraordinary range of opportunities to serve. For many years he was a trustee of Hamilton College and of Cornell University, which had both served him so well--and also of Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, and the University of Rochester and the Eastman School of Music, in Rochester. He was chairman of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. He served as president of the National Urban League. He was a co-founder of the International Executive Service Committee, in 1964, and the founder of the InterAmerican Dialogue, in 1982. He was an advisor to three U.S. Presidents, and was President Carter's representative in the Israel-Egypt negotiations following the Camp David Accord.

With Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, Sol Linowitz led the U.S. team that negotiated the Panama Canal Treaties. It has been reported that years later Sol said of this daunting challenge, ``In retrospect, I'd have to say that assignment was probably the most difficult and the most challenging of my life. It is also the accomplishment of which I am most proud.'' Sol had reason to take pride in his achievement. The treaties were brilliantly drafted and negotiated. They put an end to a growing source of friction in U.S. relations not just with Panama but with all of Latin America, and assured the continuing, smooth operation of the Canal.

It was in my capacity as a manager of the floor debate over the Senate's advice and consent to the treaties that I worked closely with Sol Linowitz over many months and got to know him well. He was an extraordinarily skillful diplomat, an honorable and dedicated public servant. He was also a person of singular intelligence, integrity, and human compassion. It was my privilege to consider him a friend.

Sol opened his memoir with the quotation cited above from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. In closing, he

turned to Archibald MacLeish. MacLeish, he noted, ``once said that 'America is promises,' but these promises have not been kept equally to all. Those of us for whom the most extravagant promises of this land have become a reality are, I think, required to seek appropriate expressions of their gratitude.'' Sol Linowitz never ceased to find opportunities to express his gratitude. Again and again over the course of his long and productive life, he found innumerable ways to make our Nation a better place for all its people.

At a memorial service at Adas Israel Congregation on March 29, 2005, Sol Linowitz was remembered in a series of moving tributes from members of his family, friends and colleagues. Every tribute reminded us yet again how deeply the loss of Sol Linowitz is felt. He was ``a man comfortable with himself, and thus everyone was comfortable with him,'' said Jim Lehrer. ``He asked questions and then he listened to the answers.'' Bernard Kalb observed, ``Sol Linowitz may have been the president of Xerox but no one has yet succeeded in making a copy of Sol.'' Mr. President, I ask that the service be printed in the Record.

The service follows.