Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am very pleased today to acknowledge two young Marylanders who were recently chosen to present and display their history projects in Washington, DC, as part of the National History Day program.

A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become informed participants in our democracy. With an eye toward increasing informed participation, National History Day--which as a national program celebrates its 25th anniversary this year--promotes history-related education in Maryland and throughout the Nation. Each year, the program allows students to use critical thinking and research skills and to create exhibits, documentaries and performances related to a particular historical subject. This year, 29 students were chosen from a pool of half a million to display their projects at various sites throughout the Nation's Capital.

Ryan Moore, a student at Mill Creek Middle School in Hughesville, Maryland, used his skills and critical thinking to create a project entitled ``Television: A Key Player in Communicating the Candidate's Message.'' He will display and present his project at the White House Visitor Center.

Lauren White, a student at Plum Point Middle School in Huntington, MD, similarly stood out from the crowd in creating a project entitled ``More Powerful than Words: The Photo Stories of Lewis Wickes Hine.'' She will display and present her project at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

I congratulate both Lauren and Ryan as they are honored for their presentations, and commend them for their dedication, commitment, and creativity.

Mr. President, yesterday was National Hunger Awareness Day. Second Harvest, the lead sponsor of the June 7 observance, has performed an important public service in challenging us to reflect on the very real problem of hunger in America. I commend Second Harvest and all the sponsoring organizations for their efforts.

Our Nation has enormous wealth, and yet far too many Americans must deal with the pain and consequences of hunger. Approximately 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, are ``food insecure''--quite simply inadequately nourished.

Hunger may be more subtler in its manifestations and effects than malnutrition but it relentlessly undermines health, and it compromises one's ability to do well in school or on the job. Inadequate nutrition in children correlates with anemia, stunted growth, weight loss and extreme fatigue. Studies done by the highly respected Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy at Tufts University show that inadequate nutrition can adversely affect a child's achievement in school. Hunger also can cause severe anxiety and depression.

Although Congress has taken measures to prevent hunger and food insecurity, much remains to be done. Federally funded programs like the Food Stamp Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, commonly referred to as the WIC program, provide assistance to low-income children by improving access to nutritional meals. It is therefore deeply regrettable that the President's 2006 budget has made it more difficult for low-income families to receive nutritional assistance. The White House's budget request for the Food Stamp Program amounts to a staggering cut of more than $500 million over 5 years by forcing over 300,000 low-income participants out of a program that acts as a crucial safety net for millions of Americans. Substantial cuts to the WIC program would result in 670,000 women and children losing important nutritional assistance by the year 2010. It is deeply regrettable that the Budget conference report approved by the Congress mandates a mandatory cut of $3 billion in agriculture appropriations, leaving Food Stamps and other domestic hunger-relief programs vulnerable.

At a time when more families are forced to struggle with unemployment and low wages, a lack of affordable housing, rising health care costs, and the disappearance of hard-earned pensions, National Hunger Day serves to remind us of the need to vanquish hunger; in this prosperous Nation, there is no reason why millions of Americans should have to face the prospect of hunger, or watch their children go hungry. The conference report on the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution Budget conference report is a callous response to an urgent challenge, and National Hunger Awareness Day is a time to pledge that we will not rest until the challenge is met.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I commend the very able Senator from Connecticut both for his statement and for the letter that he and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Biden, sent to a number of us about the necessity of trying to get these materials which we have sought.

Clearly the Congress needs this information in order to do its job. The position of the Senator from Connecticut on the cloture motion, as I understand it, is that we ought not to invoke cloture and move to a vote on Bolton until the material is provided. If the material is made available and we are in a position to make judgments, then I take it we can move forward in the normal course of the debate toward a final vote on Bolton's nomination; is that correct?

That strikes me as an eminently reasonable position. It needs to be made clear that there is material the executive branch is refusing to make available to the Senate, and which we need in order to be adequately informed in carrying out our responsibilities of advising and consenting on this nomination.

Will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

It is not every single day hereafter for this administration; it becomes a precedent for every administration. And I suggest to all Members of the Senate that they may find themselves, down the road at some point, seeking information they think is relevant and having it denied to them by the executive branch, citing the refusal to provide the information in the Bolton case as a precedent for the action they are taking.

Mr. President, first, I commend the very able Senator from Connecticut not only for his statement on the floor, but the very reasoned and judicious way he has proceeded in considering this nomination.

I join with those who think the refusal to provide the information constitutes a sufficient basis not to invoke cloture while we continue to press the administration to provide the information the Senate needs in order to do its job.

I spoke yesterday with the distinguished Ranking Member of the committee, Senator Biden, on the floor about this issue, and I have done so again here today with my friend, the Senator from Connecticut. I strongly urge my colleagues to take that position because it is a very important question of the role the Senate should play, and whether we really are an independent branch of the Government that will act to carry out our responsibilities.

Let me now address the substance of the Bolton nomination. In the 60 years since the founding of the United Nations, a number of extraordinarily distinguished men and women have been chosen to represent us in that body as the U.S. ambassador: Warren Austin, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., James Wadsworth, Adlai Stevenson, Arthur Goldberg, George W. Ball, James Russell Wiggins, Charles Yost, George Bush, John Scali, Daniel P. Moynihan, William Scranton, Andrew Young, Donald McHenry, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Vernon Walters, Thomas Pickering, Edward Joseph Perkins, Madeleine Albright, Bill Richardson, Richard Holbrooke, John Negroponte, and John Danforth.

The fact that at least 17 of them, spanning 8 administrations-- Republican and Democratic--have been elevated to serve on the President's Cabinet demonstrates the critical importance in which this position historically has been held.

The fact that we proudly remember so many of these names, after the passage of a number of years, underscores both the visibility of the U.N. ambassador and the statesmanship that the position requires. On a daily basis, our ambassador to the U.N. speaks to the entire world on behalf of the United States.

The comments our ambassador makes and the relationships he or she cultivates make the difference between a United States that is respected as a leader in the world, setting an example of American values and principles, and a United States that is ignored and misunderstood.

In today's world, this difference affects the lives of millions at home and abroad. The United Nations is not a tool to be used ``when it suits our interest and when we can get others to go along,'' as Mr. Bolton has suggested but is, rather, an essential and ongoing forum for the advancement of U.S. foreign policy and the protection of U.S. national security interests.

The U.N. makes decisions that affect war and peace. It helps to determine whether the United States will have international support and allies or will be forced to undertake difficult missions on its own in the face of broad opposition across the globe. Skillful work at the U.N. enables us to have burden sharing, both in terms of the commitment of human resources and the commitment of financial sources.

The United Nations offers us an opportunity to make our case to the world, to demonstrate international leadership, and to build multilateral cooperation. As Secretary General Annan commented in a recent speech, the U.N. ``is not just a building in Manhattan, or a piece of international machinery. It embodies a conviction on the part of people everywhere that we live on a small planet, and that our safety, our prosperity, our rights--indeed, our freedoms--are indivisible.'' For this reason, our representatives at the United Nations must be men and women of exceptional wisdom and credibility, who can listen and persuade, whose counsel and leadership other nations will seek and rely upon.

Despite the need for a U.N. ambassador who recognizes and can make the most of the U.N.'s potential and promise, we have before us now a nominee to be our ambassador to the U.N., who over a number of years has demonstrated outright hostility toward the United Nations as an institution and toward the fundamental legitimacy of international law. Mr. Bolton has argued repeatedly that the United States has no legal obligation to pay its dues to the United Nations and that treaties are nothing more than ``political commitments''.

He called the Law of the Sea Treaty, which has been endorsed by our military and submitted by President Bush as an urgent priority for Senate advice and consent, ``an illegitimate method of forcing fundamental policy changes on the United States outside the customary political process.'' He is quoted as saying:

It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to

international law even when it may seem in our short term

interest to do so--because, over the long-term, the goal of

those who think that international law really means anything

are those who want to constrict the United States.

To send someone as our ambassador to the United Nations who does not demonstrate a basic respect for the institution and its legal foundations is a disservice to our national interests. This has nothing to do with whether reforms are needed at the U.N. or whether we should more closely monitor its activities. Many of us are committed to doing both of those things. It is a very basic question of one's mindset about the United States, about the United Nations and about international law. If other nations believe that the U.S. is not out to reform the United Nations but to undercut it, then they are likely not to be receptive to any of our criticisms or recommendations.

Secondly, it is clear that Mr. Bolton does not have the diplomatic skills or, indeed, the demeanor to represent our country effectively at the U.N. There are certainly moments when the situation may call for bluntness, when abandoning diplomatic niceties can convey the urgency of a particular issue or position. However, Mr. Bolton has shown a propensity for making extreme and provocative statements that have caused unnecessary conflict and confrontation. It is not an occasional outburst that might, on occasion, be justified by the situation but, regrettably, a routine way of doing business.

Does it help us in trying to shape the direction in which the U.N. is to move when Mr. Bolton says that the Security Council should have one permanent member, the United States, ``because that is the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world''?

Does anyone think that Mr. Bolton's assertion that ``if the U.N. Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference'' will help us in persuading other countries to support U.N. reform efforts?

These are not isolated misstatements or slips of the tongue but, rather, his customary and consistent approach to dealing with others who disagree with him. Even given the opportunity to demonstrate a less confrontational approach, he has repeatedly declined to do so. Mr. Bolton, time and again, has shown himself singularly lacking in the willingness to hear, to consider, and to respect opposing points of view.

Contrast that attitude with these comments made by Ambassador Moynihan and Ambassador Kirkpatrick when they were nominated for this position. Ambassador Moynihan, in his confirmation hearing before the committee, said:

A certain principled statement of views on both sides can

be useful: it requires that we respect what others think and

try to understand what they think and ask that they do the

same in return. . . . Things where we disagree are marginal

compared with where we do agree. And yet it is so easy to

grow estranged at the first problem, the first question is

how to get away from a confrontation system back to the quest

for understanding and agreement in a situation where this is

wholly possible and entirely necessary.

Similarly, Ambassador Kirkpatrick, in her confirmation hearing before the committee, said:

I do not think that one should ever seek confrontation.

What I have every intention and hope of doing is to operate

in a low key, quiet, persuasive and consensus-building way.

This nomination came out of the committee without recommendation. There was a 9-to-9 divided vote. By contrast, all of the previous nominees to be U.N. ambassador were brought to the floor by very strong committee votes and approved on the floor by very strong votes--most of them unanimous, none of them really close.

In addition to Mr. Bolton's extreme policy views and his confrontational demeanor, there is the issue of his professional conduct. There is ample evidence that he has attempted to politicize intelligence in a way that I believe has harmed our Nation's diplomacy.

Mr. Bolton sought the transfer of two intelligence analysts with whom he disagreed on substantive matters. He repeatedly attempted to stretch the facts to back his own ideological predisposition. He created such a climate of intimidation in the State Department that the Secretary of State found it necessary to set up a special meeting with the Intelligence and Research Bureau in order to directly reassure the analysts.

To make matters worse, Mr. Bolton told the committee that he had not tried to have analysts punished or disciplined, and he denied that he sought retribution against them. He said, ``I shrugged my shoulders, and I moved on,'' when his attempts to have them reassigned were rebuffed.

And yet we have learned from extensive interviews with numerous administration officials that he did try to have the analysts removed from their positions, that he did seek to punish people for disagreeing with him, and he did persist in his efforts for many months after, as he says, he shrugged his shoulders and moved on.

That he was ultimately unsuccessful in his efforts does not speak for Mr. Bolton. What it speaks to is the steadiness and determination of those professionals who withstood his demands, who refused to bend to the inordinate pressure he was applying.

Given this conduct, when he goes before the United Nations to make a statement about evidence of nuclear weapons production or a terrorist plot or whatever it may be, what credibility will he have, knowing that he sought repeatedly to punish intelligence analysts who delivered contradictory information; knowing that he is sort of a man who, as Robert Hutchings, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, put it, ``took isolated facts and made much of them to build a case than I thought the intelligence warranted. It was a sort of cherry picking of little factoids and little isolated bits were drawn out to present the starkest possible case''?

We need a credible spokesman at the United Nations, and Mr. Bolton's conduct casts serious doubt on his ability to be one.

Moreover, Mr. Bolton's poor administrative and management skills, in my view, raise serious questions as to whether he can exercise a senior leadership role. The testimony of Carl

Ford, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, was especially powerful on this point. Mr. Ford told the committee:

In my experience, throughout my time in the executive

branch, I've really never seen someone so abusive to such a

subordinate person.

He said he could think of no one else who comes even close to John Bolton in terms of the way that he abuses his power and authority with ``little'' people.

Secretary Powell's Chief of Staff, Larry Wilkerson, described to the committee staff the kinds of problems he had on a daily basis in dealing with Bolton.

Assistant secretaries, principal deputy assistant

secretaries, acting assistant secretaries coming into my

office and telling me, ``Can I sit down?''

``Sure, sit down. What's the problem?''

``I've got to leave.''

``What's the problem?''

``Bolton.''

When asked if he got similar complaints about other Under Secretaries, he replied:

On one occasion, on one particular individual. The rest

were all about Undersecretary Bolton.

In summarizing this experience Wilkerson stated, ``I think he's a lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150 people up there''--meaning at the U.S. mission to the U.N.--``that have to be led. They have to be led well, and they have to be led properly.''

Being ambassador to the United Nations is not just a representational job; it is also a management job. There are 125 full-time, permanent State Department employees working there at our mission alongside numerous detailees from other agencies and departments. The ambassador has supervisory responsibility over all these people. Most are career civil servants, and they are there to represent the policies of the President and to serve the interests of the Nation.

What are they going to do up there in New York if John Bolton repeats the kind of abusive behavior that led people in the State Department, under incredible pressure, to seek the support and counsel of their assistant secretaries? There will be no one in New York to shield them from the wrath and vindictiveness of John Bolton.

Mr. President, unfortunately, it seems to have become, for some, a favorite pastime to assault the United Nations. They blame it for failing to resolve many of the problems that have occurred in the world. But I think we have to acknowledge that the U.N. has a role to play in preventing conflict and promoting cooperation. Skillful U.S. leadership at the United Nations can enhance our national interest in a very significant way, and part of that skilled leadership is to send an ambassador who has credibility and the wisdom necessary to carry out his responsibilities.

This nominee falls far short of that standard. Mr. President, 102 retired diplomats have taken the extraordinary step of sending a letter urging the Senate to reject the nomination.

Finally, let me say just this word about the witnesses who came forward to the committee to testify about Mr. Bolton's past conduct. These people, in effect, volunteered themselves to give what they thought would be an accurate view of Mr. Bolton's behavior. It took a lot of courage for people like Mr. Ford, Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Hutchings, Ambassador Hubbard, and others to come forward. I am very concerned they may pay a price for this brave action, and I very deeply regret if this should turn out to be the case. I think their motive in coming forward was to promote the national interests of our country. In that sense, I think they are true patriots. They have nothing to gain by opposing the nomination.

In fact, they have much to lose.

Mr. President, this nomination ought to be defeated. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it. We can do better, and, for the sake of our country, we must do better.

Mr. President, I want to pay tribute today to an outstanding public servant, educator, and communicator, Charlie Walker. Charlie is retiring after a distinguished 40-year career in teaching and government service at the local, State and Federal levels, most recently as director of government affairs for the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of dedicated service and contributions to the American people.

Born in Charleston, WV, Charlie spent much of his youth and career in Baltimore, MD. He was a graduate of Clifton Park Junior High and Baltimore's City College, one of the oldest and finest public high schools in the country. He won scholarships to Towson State Teachers College, now Towson University, where he excelled academically and in his extracurricular activities, selected to serve not only as president of the Phi Alpha Theta Honorary Society in history but also as a manager of three sports teams--soccer, wrestling, and track. Upon graduation in 1963, Charlie taught for 3 years in Baltimore's secondary schools and then enrolled in West Virginia University to earn a master's degree in history. In 1966, Charlie enlisted in the U.S. Army and served for a 3-year period in Vietnam and at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He returned to West Virginia University to obtain a Ph.D. in history, and worked in various and progressively responsible positions in local, State and Federal Government, including service as an historian and public affairs officer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an aide to the mayor of Baltimore and a research analyst with the Library of Congress.

In 1987, Charlie Walker was tapped to lead the public affairs office of the newly established Maryland Department of the Environment, and it was in this position that I first had the opportunity and privilege of working closely with Charlie. A highly skilled communicator and manager, Charlie assembled a terrific team to promote the initiatives of the new department and to protect and restore the quality of Maryland's air, water, and land resources. Charlie and his team set a standard for outreach and responsiveness that few, if any, agencies have been able to match. He served in this position until 1991 when he was recruited, as government affairs officer for the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to help the district restore relations and responsiveness with the Congress and other levels of government. Over the past 14 years, Charlie has been a trusted adviser to six district engineers, and the principal point of contact for Members of Congress and our staffs from the Five States and the District of Columbia, which encompass the Baltimore District's jurisdiction.

With his in-depth knowledge, political astuteness, and a dedication to public service that is second to none, Charlie has remained a constant force in moving the Army Corps of Engineers' programs and services forward. He is well known, widely respected, and well liked, not only among the staff at the Baltimore District but throughout the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and beyond. He is the core of the Corps. His advice is constantly sought for improving communications and relations with the press, the public and with elected officials at all levels of government. Over the years, he has inspired great loyalty in the members of the Baltimore District staff and affection from the countless others with whom he has worked. He will be sorely missed by those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him.

Throughout the course of his career, Charlie has received numerous honors including the Commander's Award for Civil Service, Governor's Salute to Excellence Award, and the Maryland Department of the Environment Award for Outstanding Public Service. In addition to his public service, Charlie has volunteered a great deal of time and energy serving on the numerous organizations, including the Phi Alpha Theta History Society, the Society of American Military Engineers, and the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs.

It is my firm conviction that public service and teaching are among the most honorable callings. They demand the very best, most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens. Throughout his career Charlie Walker has exemplified a steadfast commitment to meeting this demand. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of hard work and dedication and wish him well in the years ahead.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding that if a policymaker wants to make a statement reflecting an intelligence judgment, representing the position of the Government--not his own personal position, but the position of the Government--the standard practice is for the statement to be submitted to the intelligence community for clearance, to be certain that the statement accurately reflects the judgment of the intelligence community; is that correct?

So you don't have policymakers making assertions about intelligence matters that are not supported by the intelligence community. If you stop and think about that, it seems to me that is a very wise rule. Otherwise, policymakers can run around making all kinds of assertions about intelligence matters, portraying them as representing the considered judgment of the Government and, therefore, the considered judgment of the intelligence community. That is the kind of review that the intelligence community--in addition to the sources and methods review--was undertaking to do.

As I understand it, it is standard operating procedure for any policymaker----

And that was the very thing that Bolton not only complained about, but for which he sought to have certain intelligence analysts punished; is that right?

If the Senator will yield for a further question, I understand that the analyst with whom Bolton had this confrontation said that what Bolton was seeking to say didn't represent the judgment of the intelligence community. In other words, the analyst was stating correctly the position of the intelligence community which Mr. Bolton was, in effect, seeking to ignore or go against. So it is not as though the analyst was seeking to impose his own personal opinion. His judgment corresponded with the vetted judgment of the broader intelligence community; is that correct?

Will the Senator yield for a further question?

I apologize if I am anticipating his statement. As I understand it, when a policymaker requests the transcripts of intelligence intercepts, let's say the intercept of a conversation, the documents that are provided identify the foreign source but they do not usually identify the American; is that how it usually works?

It is my understanding that what Mr. Bolton had requested to know, although it was not revealed when they initially provided him the intercepts, was who were the Americans in each of these instances; is that correct?

And he got the name, presumably.

I understand in trying to do due diligence on the Bolton nomination on the part of the committee, the very able Senator from Delaware, who has had extensive experience on investigatory matters, requested that we be provided with the names of the Americans that Bolton had received from the intelligence agency; is that correct?

It seems to me a further question is that if Mr. Bolton went back to get those names for some reason--he must have had a reason for doing so--why the committee, in deciding whether to confirm him, should not have access to that same information so that we are in a position to ascertain what, if anything, may have been in play by these requests.

And Senators who are charged with making this very important decision about whether this nominee should be confirmed for this very important position. It seems to me clearly relevant in reaching some judgment about the nominee to have this information provided to those who have to render the judgment.

Would the Senator yield on that point?

These are the very names that were provided to Mr. Bolton; is that right?

And his staff?

But there is a refusal to provide them to the committee which now has to make a judgment as to whether Mr. Bolton should be confirmed to be the American ambassador to the United Nations?

Well, what rationale is advanced, if any, for this backhanded treatment of the institutions of the Senate, these two important committees, the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, both of which are trying to conduct due diligence on this nominee?

I might say to my colleague, I remember when we held the nomination hearings for John Negroponte and Richard Holbrooke. That investigation went over an extended period of time and probed very deeply. The end result, of course, was that questions that had been raised were answered satisfactorily, and the body was able to come to a consensus about those nominees.

I cannot think of a rationale that can be offered that would warrant a withholding of this information.

I thank the Senator for yielding. I just underscore this raises, I think, very fundamental and difficult questions about how we are supposed to carry out our responsibilities, in terms of advice and consent, if we are not allowed to get what appears to be relevant information or what might well be relevant information.

The request is fairly limited, as I understand it, in terms of what is being sought. It seems to me that information ought to be provided to the Senate, or the appropriate agents or organs of the Senate, in order to put us into a position to at least address that aspect of this situation.

There are many other aspects of the Bolton situation that I want to speak to later. But this one, it seems to me, is clearly an instance in which we are simply being blocked or frustrated from having information which is important to us carrying out our task, and is in such contrast with the inquiries that were made about other nominees to be U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations. Of course, I mentioned two of those. The inquiries there went over quite a sustained period of time.

We heard these complaints that Bolton is being held up. His nomination only came to us in March, I believe, of this year--March. Ambassador Holbrooke was nominated in June of 1998. He was finally confirmed in August of 1999. In the interim, these extensive investigations were run. I do not have the exact dates on Ambassador Negroponte, but I know that period of time extended well beyond what is already involved with respect to John Bolton.

Well, there you are. That underscores the point I am trying to make.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

If the Senator will yield, this is an Under Secretary of State. This is like the No. 4 person in the Department.

Yes.

Of course, that represented a sharp departure from previous practice.

I take it, if the Senator will yield--I take it this is of such importance now because we are dealing with this problem as to whether intelligence is being misused.

Decisions are being made by policymakers that reflect their policy attitude--

Not substantiated or backed up by the findings of the intelligence community. We have been through this issue. It seems to me a critically important issue.

Will the Senator yield on one other point I would like to make?

First of all, I want to pay tribute to the intelligence analysts and their superiors who stood up to this pressure to which the Senator has referred. They were put in an extremely difficult situation, and they performed admirably.

It is asserted by some that no harm resulted from the pressure Mr. Bolton and his staff were placing on these people because they did not do what Mr. Bolton wanted them to do.

That seems to me to be an upside down argument. The fact that they had the strength to resist this is a tribute to them, but it is certainly no excuse for Mr. Bolton and his staff engaging in this behavior. And the fact they resisted--which is a credit to them--is still a detriment to Mr. Bolton and his staff for engaging in this practice.

So the argument that Mr. Bolton and his staff did not succeed in their efforts does not absolve them of responsibility for having tried.

That is a pretty good definition.

Mr. President, I understand there are 6 minutes remaining on this side.

I yield myself 3 of the 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in very strong opposition to the Sessions amendment. It is a bad idea, both from the standpoint of process and policy. First, it would undo the carefully balanced package developed by the four committees of jurisdiction. Four committees have worked putting this package together: the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee, and the Commerce Committee. All have been involved in this process. They have spent literally years laying the groundwork for this bill, working ever since passage of the last bill. When we went through the last session of congress, we could not get a bill passed. We have since had interim extensions which were of concern.

The chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the ranking member have spent countless hours trying to put together a sensible and reasonable package, making tough decisions regarding funding allocations among the various programs. This amendment would begin the process of unraveling those committee decisions, both as they affect highways and transit. I warn my colleagues at the outset, this is a bad way to proceed on a complicated and important piece of legislation which is important to every single Member of this body-- important to their Governors, important to their county officials, and right on down the line.

We know as a matter of policy there is tremendous stress on our transportation system. The costs we pay in congestion have been detailed by the Texas Transportation Institute. My own view is we need even more investment in our transportation system, and it is provided for in this bill.

I understand the practicalities of the situation in which we find ourselves. Failure to make the needed investment in transportation systems would constrain our economic competitiveness and leave us at a disadvantage in world competition.

There are very few bills that are so essential to the economic well- being of our country as this bill. This transportation infrastructure bill is critical to economic development and economic competitiveness in all 50 States. Failure to make the investment that is necessary will constitute a setback to our efforts to build a better and stronger economy.

I thank the Senator from Montana.

The transportation industry is strongly opposed to this amendment. For example, to take one instance of a group we deal with, given the jurisdiction of our Banking Committee over mass transit, the American Public Transportation Association, which represents 1,500 transit agencies across the country, observes that the Sessions amendment would undo the bipartisan and widely supported efforts in the Senate in support of increased and balanced transportation infrastructure investment and should be strongly opposed.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to Chairman Inhofe in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Let me again underscore how vitally important the programs authorized in the underlying bill are for the economic and social health of our Nation. As with any large and complex piece of legislation, not everyone will be satisfied. I think this bill represents a reasonable approach to meeting our urgent transportation needs. The pending amendment would begin the process of unraveling that approach to which so much effort has been devoted by so many people.

I particularly rticularly thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords and Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their involvement in trying to shape a good piece of legislation. I didn't agree with every decision that is in this package, but I see it as a significant forward step in dealing with a very important national priority. I hope my colleagues will reject the Sessions amendment and that we will then go on to approve the Inhofe substitute amendment and final passage of this bill.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

American Public Transportation

Association,

Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.

Hon. James M. Inhofe,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Inhofe: On behalf of the American Public

Transportation Association (APTA) and its more than 1,500

member organizations, I write to express our strong

opposition to the amendment Senator Sessions offered--#646--

to H.R. 3. That amendment would sharply reduce funding of a

number of programs in H.R. 3 by some $10.7 billion over six

years.

It is critically important that H.R. 3 be passed by the

Senate at the enhanced level of funding included in the

Inhofe substitute amendment. The Inhofe substitute amendment

is a balanced and carefully crafted measure that has strong

bipartisan support from the leadership of the Senate Banking,

Environment and Public Works, and Finance Committees. Transit

and highway needs are critical and have been documented by

the American Association of State Highway & Transportation

Officials and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. The Inhofe

substitute amendment addresses those needs in a balanced

approach supported by a broad range of affected groups and

coalitions. In contrast, the amendment offered by Senator

Sessions would dramatically cut a number of programs across

the board, including the transit formula program by $5

billion, the congestion mitigation and air quality program by

$4 billion, and other programs that enjoy broad bipartisan

support.

In short, the Sessions amendment would undo the bipartisan

and widely supported efforts in the Senate in support of

increased and balanced transportation infrastructure

investment and should strongly be opposed.

If you have questions on this matter, please have your

staff contact Rob Healy of APTA's Government Affairs

Department at (202) 496-4811 or email [email protected].

Sincerely yours,

William W. Millar,

President.

Mr. President, it is critically important that we move forward with this reauthorization of the Nation's highway and transit programs. Although the funding levels contained in this measure are lower than many of us believe are warranted or necessary to address our pressing transportation infrastructure needs, given the budget constraints within which we had to work, I think we have responded with a reasoned and balanced package that will maintain and enhance our transit, rail and highway systems.

There is a huge backlog of needed repairs, replacements, and upgrades to bring our transportation network--our roads, bridges, transit systems and railroads--up to standards. The Department of Transportation's Conditions and Performance Report estimates that an average of $127 billion per year is needed over the next two decades to maintain and improve the condition of these systems. Other estimates show an even greater need. This backlog constrains our Nation's economic competitiveness, leaves more and more Americans stuck in traffic, contributes to air pollution and results in unnecessary fatalities.

Just last week, the Texas Transportation Institute released its annual ``Urban Mobility Report,'' which measures traffic congestion in the Nation's 85 largest cities. The report found that congestion across the country delayed travelers by 3.7 billion hours and wasted 2.3 billion gallons of gasoline in 2003. That is nearly 80 million more hours and 70 million more gallons of fuel in 2003 than in 2002. Average hours spent in rush hour traffic jams jumped from 16 in 1982 to 47 in 2003. The Washington Metropolitan area continues to suffer the third- worst traffic congestion in the country, costing area drivers an estimated $2.46 billion in lost time, fuel and productivity, or $577 per commuter. Equally important, the study found that this area would have the worst congestion in the country if not for our public transportation systems. As these figures show, congestion has a real economic cost, in addition to the psychological and social costs of spending hours each day sitting in traffic. We cannot afford to let these costs of congestion grow any further.

In my judgment, the report underscores the need to bolster investment in our transportation infrastructure and to put in place a sensible, balanced transportation network. Over the past 2 years, we have been working hard in the Congress to do just that: to reauthorize the Nation's surface transportation program, and to bring our transportation network up to standards. Last year, the Senate approved a measure authorizing $318 billion in funding over the next six years-- an increase of $100 billion over the previous measure--which, in my view, provided the kind of investment needed to not only prevent further deterioration of our transportation network, but to improve the system, relieve congestion and save lives. Unfortunately, SAFETEA did not emerge from conference due in large part to the unwillingness of the administration and the House leadership to support that level of investment. As a result, we have had to pass six short-term extensions of the previous transportation legislation, TEA-21. The uncertainty inherent in these short-term extensions hinders our State and local partners in their efforts to meet the daily challenges of maintaining our transportation infrastructure and planning for improvements.

The measure that is before the Senate this year provides $295 billion over the next 6 years in highway and transit funding. That is $11 billion more than the level recently approved by the House and $39 billion more than was originally recommended in the President's reauthorization proposal. For our Nation's roadways and bridges, this legislation authorizes an average increase of nearly 31 percent in funding to enable States and localities to make desperately needed repairs and improvements. Maryland's share of highway funding will grow by more than $820 million over the next 6 years, from $2.66 billion to $3.49 billion, compared to the level provided in TEA-21, to help upgrade our highway infrastructure. This represents an average of more than $142 million more each year than was provided under TEA-21.

In the next two decades, Maryland's driving age population is expected to increase by nearly 20 percent, the number of licensed drivers by 25 percent, and the number of registered vehicles by nearly 30 percent--and this will mean significantly more traffic on our roads and pressures on our transit systems. Maryland's Department of Transportation is facing deficient roads and bridges as well as key gaps and bottlenecks within the State's transportation system that are known to cause delay and congestion. Maryland has an estimated unfunded capital need for more than $13 billion in highway maintenance, construction and reconstruction over the next ten years. Clearly, Maryland must have adequate funding to address these transportation challenges and to facilitate overall mobility--and the funds made available under this measure will be a significant help in this regard.

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

I am especially pleased that the Senate rejected an amendment to strike the stormwater runoff mitigation provision that is contained in the measure, which sets aside 2 percent of a State's Surface Transportation Program for stormwater runoff mitigation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, polluted stormwater from impervious surfaces such as roads is a leading cause of impairment for nearly 40 percent of U.S. waterways not meeting water quality standards. In the Chesapeake Bay region, it is estimated that runoff from highways contributes nearly 7 million pounds of nitrogen, 1 million pounds of phosphorous and 167,000 tons of sediment annually to the bay. In Maryland alone, the Center for Watershed Protection estimates that the 7500 miles of Federal-aid highways generate yearly loads of 1.2 million pounds of nitrogen, 127,000 pounds of phosphorous and 25,000 pounds of sediment into Maryland waterways and eventually into Chesapeake Bay each year. A study by the Chesapeake Bay Commission estimates stormwater retrofit costs at more than $2.5 billion across the watershed. The stormwater provision will provide more than $66 million for the bay States and local governments for stormwater abatement, of which approximately $12.75 million would be available for Maryland.

For our Nation's transit systems, the legislation authorizes $53.8 billion--$12.3 billion more than provided in TEA-21--to modernize and expand our transit facilities. These funds will go a long way to meeting the growing demand for transit in cities, towns, rural areas, and suburban jurisdictions across the country. Maryland's formula share of transit funding will grow by nearly 52 percent over the next 6 years--from $571 million to $870 million. These funds are absolutely critical to Maryland's efforts to maintain and upgrade the Baltimore and Washington Metro systems, the MARC commuter rail system serving Baltimore, Washington, DC, Frederick, and Brunswick, and the Baltimore Light Rail system. Bus systems and paratransit systems for elderly and disabled people throughout Maryland will also receive a big boost in funding. The measure also includes a provision reauthorizing the National Transportation Center--NTC--at Morgan State University. The NTC conducts important research, education and technology transfer activities that support workforce development of minorities and women, and addresses urban transportation problems. In addition, it includes provisions which would address a very important issue for employees of the Food and Drug Administration who will be relocating to the new FDA headquarters at White Oak, MD, enabling the agency to use its own vehicles to offer employees shuttle service to and from the metro system at Silver Spring and potentially other transit facilities. The potential impact of this provision on regional traffic is not insignificant. When construction of the White Oak complex is completed, FDA will house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. By enabling this access from FDA's new campus to a transit station, we can reduce congestion on area roadways, improve our environment and elevate the quality of life for FDA employees. The legislation also includes a requirement for the Federal Transit Administration to report to Congress on ways to promote improved access to and increased usage of tax-free transit benefits at Federal agencies in the National Capital Region. Increasing use of public transit by federal employees has the potential to greatly aid our efforts to combat congestion and pollution in the region.

I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes the Transit in Parks Act, or TRIP, which I introduced. This new Federal transit grant initiative will support the development of alternative transportation services--everything from rail or clean fuel bus projects to pedestrian and bike paths,

or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. It will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks--quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2005, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Mikulski and Warner. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the Nation.

All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2003 Americans in 85 urban areas spent 3.7 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $64.8 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that without transit, the 85 urban areas they studied would have suffered an additional 1.1 billion hours of delay, a 27 percent increase, which would have added $18 billion to the national cost of congestion.

Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for both employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2005 to $105 per month.

Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average.

In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work.

According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 150,000 employees-- more than one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region.

The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover employees in the legislative and judicial branches, for example, or in dozens of independent agencies. While many of the employers in those organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit.

Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations.

The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By the middle of this year, FDA expects to have 1,850 employees located at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees.

This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal Government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop.

The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and the independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to thousands of additional federal employees in the Washington, DC region.

Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown by over 200 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life.

I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2005, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Mikulski and Warner. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the Nation.

All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2003 Americans in 85 urban areas spent 3.7 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $64.8 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that without transit, the 85 urban areas they studied would have suffered an additional 1.1 billion hours of delay, a 27 percent increase, which would have added $18 billion to the national cost of congestion.

Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for both employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2005 to $105 per month.

Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average.

In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work.

According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 150,000 employees-- more than one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region.

The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover employees in the legislative and judicial branches, for example, or in dozens of independent agencies. While many of the employers in those organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit.

Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations.

The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By the middle of this year, FDA expects to have 1,850 employees located at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees.

This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal Government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop.

The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and the independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to thousands of additional federal employees in the Washington, DC region.

Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown by over 200 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life.

I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.

Mr. President, when President Kennedy established Older Americans Month in 1963, he began an important tradition of designating a time for our country to honor older citizens for their many accomplishments and contributions to our Nation. Now, as we recognize May as ``Older Americans Month,'' I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the contributions senior citizens have made in shaping our Nation and to reassert our commitment to enhancing the living standard of our senior community.

This year's theme is ``Celebrate Long Term Living.'' Many seniors in Maryland exemplify that idea, continuing to lead vital, active lives throughout their ``golden years.'' Bob Ray Perry Hall, from Hamilton, MD, who ran every day from April 4, 1967 until his 68th birthday on April 7, 2005, is one such example. Mr. Hall holds the longest consecutive running streak in the United States and the second longest record in the entire world, a remarkable accomplishment at any age. Ms. Evelyn Wright of Annapolis is another

senior to celebrate. In 2003, Ms. Wright was named National Master Field Athlete of the Year for 2003 and since the age of 55, she has amassed hundreds of medals and trophies as a competitor in Senior Olympic events. She started her track and field career with the softball throw, but now competes in a multitude of events including pole vault, high jump, long jump, and hammer throw. She continues to travel around the country competing and setting track and field records for her age group. Many seniors in Maryland are enjoying old age by starting new ventures. At age 68 and 66 respectively, Emily Levitas and Linda Segal decided to join forces and become co-owners of ``Gotta Have Bags,'' a successful handbag store located in Hampden.

The list of enterprising, energetic, and active Maryland seniors and others throughout the Nation goes on and on and extends to all facets of life. We are very grateful for the enormous contributions they make day in and day out. But as a Nation, we do not always live up to our end of the bargain. There is much to be done to help seniors sustain quality long-term living. I have worked diligently in the Senate to ensure that older Americans are able to live with dignity and independence during their later years, and we will continue to fight the recent slew of misguided attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and other programs so crucial to senior citizens.

I have significant concerns about the impact of Medicaid cuts on seniors. People often forget that Medicaid is the largest funding source for long-term care services, institutional and home-based, for the elderly. Without such aid, many older Americans could not manage to pay for adequate care. Yet the Administration proposes to slash this program while extending tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. It is difficult to ``celebrate long-term living'' if you cannot afford to secure reasonable quality healthcare and long-term living facilities.

Another critical need that must be addressed is affordable prescription drugs. I voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 because I believed it would jeopardize promises that we as a Nation have made to seniors. I was principally concerned that the new law would fail to provide a comprehensive, consistent, and affordable prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Many of the concerns that I had during consideration of that measure are now coming to fruition. Indeed, as we prepare for the implementation of the drug benefit in 2006, we are just now learning that seniors will encounter the uncertainty of incomplete coverage for drug costs, along with rapidly rising pharmaceutical costs. To address these concerns, I favor proposals that provide Medicare beneficiaries with full prescription drug coverage. In addition, a number of my colleagues and I supported legislation during the Senate's consideration of the Medicare overhaul that would have controlled drug prices by allowing our Government to negotiate directly with drug companies. Unfortunately, these proposals were defeated when they came to the Senate for a full vote, but I continue to work with my colleagues on these and other proposals to bring drug prices under control.

On top of all of this, the Medicare trustees have predicted exhaustion of the Medicare Hospital Inpatient Trust Fund in 2020. With the rising costs of drugs and health care in general, and the implicit lack of means to reduce drug costs in the new law, we will be faced with hard decisions sooner than originally anticipated. The answer to the funding gap must not be to decrease benefits. A comprehensive Medicare plan and affordable pharmaceuticals are two important pieces that could help seniors live with dignity and independently, but these crucial needs remain very much in jeopardy.

Finally, our seniors deserve the guarantees promised to them after years of contributing to the Social Security program. In 1935, President Roosevelt sought to create a program that would ``give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.'' There are those who suggest that the only way Social Security can meet the expanding demand of future retirees is by creating private accounts and simultaneously decreasing benefits. We must work to preserve, not diminish, Roosevelt's legacy. Thus far, Social Security has been effective in improving the standard of living and reducing poverty among the elderly and disabled by providing an inflation-indexed, defined benefit, no matter how long an individual lives and regardless of the vagaries of the stock market. Throughout their lives, seniors have paid into a system with the understanding that their benefits will be there for them when they retire. We must uphold our end of the bargain and ensure that these benefits are available. The words of President Roosevelt should continue to guide our conscience.

This Older Americans Month I ask my colleagues to respect and renew our commitment to our seniors and all of our citizens. As seniors face old age, they should not face uncertainty about their living situations, about their access to health care, and about their financial circumstances. Our older Americans add great value to our Nation. We must take this month as an opportunity to redouble our efforts on behalf of this and future generations so that our older Americans can continue to ``Celebrate Long-Term Living'' now and well into the future.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to follow the Senator from Alabama, after he completes his statement.

Mr. President, I rise to join my able and distinguished colleague from Alabama, the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, in strong support of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005, which has been incorporated into the pending amendment which was offered yesterday by Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

The Federal Public Transportation Act was reported out by the Banking Committee earlier this year, and, I might add, by a unanimous voice vote. Moreover, although the funding level provided in this bill is lower than in the one we passed last year, the program structure and policy decisions reflected in this bill are almost identical to those included in S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Act, SAFETEA, which passed the Senate last year with overwhelming bipartisan support.

At the very outset, I express my appreciation to Chairman Shelby who worked tirelessly on the development of this legislation last year, reaching across the aisle in a cooperative manner to develop a transit bill that will begin to address the urgent needs faced by communities all across the country.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords; and the Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, for their efforts to move this very important bill forward.

As has already been observed in this debate, SAFETEA did not emerge from conference last year, regrettably, due in large part to the unwillingness of the administration to support the kind of significant investment needed to meet our pressing transit and highway needs. As a result, we have had to pass six short-term extensions of the previous transportation legislation, TEA-21. The uncertainty inherent in these short-term extensions hinders our State and local partners in their efforts to meet the daily challenges of maintaining our transportation infrastructure and planning for improvements.

I want to express my appreciation to a number of colleagues who worked to provide additional resources for transportation beyond what was reported out by the various committees earlier this year. A higher level of investment is essential if we are to keep up with the increasing demand along our entire transportation network.

I want to say a few words about the transit title, which was supported by every member of the Banking Committee. Over the last several years, the Banking Committee and its Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, under the leadership first of Senator Reed of Rhode Island and then more recently of Senator Allard of Colorado, has held a series of hearings on the Federal transit program and its contribution to reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and improving our quality of life.

Over the course of those hearings, we heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, Federal Transit Administrator Jenna Dorn, representatives of transit agencies from around the country, mayors, business and labor leaders, environmentalists, economic development experts, and transit riders themselves. Virtually all of the witnesses agreed that the investment that had been made under TEA-21 contributed to a renaissance for transit in this country. In fact, transit ridership is up 23 percent since 1995, and is still increasing, even faster than the growth in highway use.

Transit plays a critical role in our efforts to combat congestion. My able colleague, the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Shelby, made reference to a study released just this week by the Texas Transportation Institute, talking about the tremendous cost to the Nation in lost time and wasted fuel because of congestion--people simply stuck in traffic.

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

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

Transit benefits the economy in other ways as well. For example, transit investments in one community can have repercussions in many areas around the country. The president of the American Public Transportation Association, Bill Millar, who has testified before the Senate on a number of occasions, pointed out that when one locality builds a rail system or develops its bus system, the manufacturing or the assembly of those rail cars and buses may well be done in a different jurisdiction. So one has to keep in mind when considering the economic benefits of transit, it is not only the area that is upgrading its transit system that benefits. That area will invariably spend its money on a whole range of supplies and services which are produced elsewhere in the country. As Mr. Millar said:

While the Federal money would appear to be going one place,

the impact of that money tends to go very far and wide.

Of course, transit is about more than our economic life. It is also about our quality of life. During our hearings, we heard a great deal about the importance of transit to our senior citizens, our young people, the disabled, and others who rely on transit for their daily mobility needs. Several of our witnesses observed that the increased investment in transit and paratransit services under the previous bill provided the crucial link between home and a job, school, or a doctor's office, for millions of people who otherwise might not have been able to participate fully in the life of their community. Further, we saw after 9/11 how transit can be an important lifeline in other respects, as well. We had very moving testimony during our hearings about the efforts made by transit operators on that day to move tens of thousands of people quickly and safely out of our city centers.

As a result of transit's many benefits, the demand for transit is continuing to increase all across the Nation. Small towns, rural areas, suburban jurisdictions, and large cities, are all struggling to keep up with the need to provide safe and reliable transit service for their citizens. The Department of Transportation has estimated that very significant sums will be needed to maintain the condition and performance of transit systems across the country.

The transit title authorizes $53.8 billion in transit investment. I am frank to say I believe that the transit needs of the nation would justify even more, but I am pleased to say that under this bill transit will see a significant increase in funding over TEA-21. A strong transit program is essential to our efforts to improve our citizens' mobility and strengthen our national economy.

I want to take just a moment or two to highlight some of the most important features of the amendment before us with respect to transit.

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

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

The New Starts program, which helps communities make their first major investment in transit as well as expand existing systems, also grows under this bill. The New Starts program will enable communities to address their mobility and development needs with transit investment and to gain the benefits of transit that exist elsewhere in the country.

Furthermore, the amendment maintains the existing 80 percent Federal match on new starts transit projects, and thus continues the parity that has existed between the local match requirement for highway and transit projects. This is a very important factor in ensuring that the investment decision at the local level is not weighted in one direction or the other because of a more favorable local match requirement. Mayor McCory of Charlotte, NC, made this point in one of our hearings when he observed that:

There's a strong need to keep the program 80-20, as we do

for other forms of transportation, including roads. That does

send a strong message that transit is as important as our

road network.

The bill makes a significant change in the new starts program by allowing new starts funding to be used for the first time to fund transit projects that do not operate along a fixed guideway, as long as the project is seeking less than $75 million in Federal funds. There are only a few examples of such projects currently operating in the Nation, and I hope to work with the Federal Transit Administration to ensure that the FTA develops an appropriate quantitative methodology for evaluating the costs and benefits of such projects, particularly as they relate to land use and economic development impacts.

As we begin to experiment with different forms of transit service, we must be careful not to adversely impact FTA's highly competitive and successful process for moving projects through the New Starts Program.

While the bill preserves the general structure of TEA-21, several new formulas are included to target transit funds more directly to those States and cities with extraordinary transportation needs. The bill includes a new growth and density formula. The growth portion will distribute funds to all States based on their expected future population, and the density portion will provide funding to those States whose populations are above a certain density threshold.

The bill also includes an incentive tier to reward small transit- intensive cities, those cities with a population between 50,000 and 200,000 which provide higher than average amounts of transit service. The funds distributed under these new formulas will help communities address their unique transportation needs.

The bill includes a requirement that metropolitan planning organizations development a public participation plan to ensure that public transportation employees, affected community members, users of public transportation, freight shippers, private sector providers--all the interested parties concerned about the transportation infrastructure--have an opportunity to participate in the transportation plan approval process.

Transportation investments are among the most important decisions made at the local level. I firmly believe all interested parties should have an opportunity to contribute to this process. Our transportation infrastructure is central to making our economy and, indeed, our society work day to day. That is why this is such a critical and important piece of legislation.

Finally, I am pleased that the legislation includes a new Transit in Parks Program to help national parks and other public lands find alternative transportation solutions to the traffic problems they are now facing. This is a program the administration supports. It has very strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It is an effort to address the problem of overcrowding that has come with increased visitation to our national parks and other public lands. In some cases people must wait in long lines to get into a national park, or they get to the entrance and find they are turned back because the park's roads and parking lots are at capacity.

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

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

The committee put a great deal of effort into developing a package that would recognize the various types of transit needs across the Nation. Of course, as with any program with limited resources, no one gets as much as they would like. But given the framework within which the committee had to work, I think we have responded fairly and rationally to the needs that have been expressed to us. All in all, I think this is a balanced package, which I am pleased to commend to my colleagues.

This bill provides essential support to our local and State partners in their efforts to combat congestion and pollution and to ensure that their citizens can access safe and reliable transit services. It is no exaggeration to say this is essential legislation for the future strength and vitality of our economy and of our society, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Do I understand, Mr. President, that the amendment that would strike the storm water mitigation provisions from the bill that was reported out by the committee is the pending business?

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First, I commend the committee, the chairman, the ranking member, and my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Chafee, for including this provision in the legislation before the Senate.

This provides for a set-aside of a State Surface Transportation Program for storm water runoff mitigation. All of our local officials-- our mayors, our county commissioners, and others--say this is essential as we address reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Program. It is a very modest amount in the overall context of the bill, less than $900 million nationwide to meet a very important and pressing need that confronts local governments struggling to deal with the contamination of drinking water and the cleanup of streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds from highway and street storm water discharge.

A great deal of the pollution comes from these runoffs off the roadways. We are talking about oil, grease, lead, mercury. In my own State, where we are working so hard on the Chesapeake Bay, we know the runoff from highways contributes very large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous and sediment to the bay and confronts the State with a very serious clean water program.

Many of our Nation's highways and roads were built before the implementation of storm water regulations. States are required to have pollution reduction from new highways under EPA regulations, but we need to have a mitigation program to deal with pollution from existing Federal highways and associated paved services. Otherwise, we will have great difficulty in meeting federally mandated water quality standards. The standards have been put into place. The question now is, How do we reach the standards?

My colleagues on the committee have done a very skillful job. I, again, commend the chairman, the ranking member, and Senators Warner and Chafee who, of course, are on the committee and try and find ways to provide help to States and localities in fixing this problem.

This is an effort, of course, to make funding available to deal with the storm water impact to water quality and the stream channels. The estimates are quite large in terms of what is needed. This amendment has very strong support from a broad range of groups. It is a relatively small amount out of the total highway budget, but it deals in a very focused way with a significant problem. It is a very wise investment of these moneys in order to achieve a very marked improvement with respect to the mitigation of the pollution impacts of storm water discharge.

I commend the committee for the work they have done on this amendment, for its inclusion in the legislation. I very strongly support the committee bill and very much hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment which would strike a provision that is in the committee bill. This amendment takes out of the committee bill a provision developed within the committee in a very skillful way that addresses a very important problem. I very much hope my colleagues will reject this amendment which strikes the storm water mitigation provisions reported in the committee.

I thank the ranking member very much.

What the committee has done is a very important step forward in a very balanced bill. I very much hope we will sustain this provision in the committee-reported bill.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

As I understand it, the President's budget, and this budget resolution, do not provide anything for the long-term costs of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the continuing war on terror?

So the budget is not really presenting a true picture of what we can anticipate in terms of expenditures; is that correct?

Are there other items they have left out besides the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan?

What would the deficits be if all of these things are included?

Would the Senator yield for a question?

When did the President make that statement?

Grievously wrong. I gather we will probably see the true picture of what has happened over the succeeding 4 years, but we continue to run these deficits and we are getting deeper into debt all the time. Is that not correct?

Would the Senator yield for a question?

If the debt keeps running up, then the carrying charge on the debt goes up every year. So more and more of the annual budget is consumed in order to pay the interest charge on the debt that was built up because deficits have been run before, is that correct?

Mr. President, that is the question I wanted to put to my colleague.

As I understand what is happening, we are becoming increasingly dependent economically on countries abroad. We are losing control over our own economic destiny.

They say, well, they are still willing to lend us this money. That may be, but in the course of doing it, we become more and more dependent upon them. They can continue to give us the money, we get deeper and deeper into the hole, which then raises the prospect that if they shift their policy, we can take a very serious hit. There is no commentator I have read who believes we can continue on this path indefinitely. At some time there will be a reckoning.

What has happened is the United States has become dependent on the kindness of strangers. We say we are No. 1, that we have the world's strongest economy. Yet we are in hock to everyone around the world.

The Senator showed the figures of the holdings of other countries. The China figures, which are still well short of Japan, are going up on an ascending trend that is almost breathtaking in terms of how much deeper we get into hock.

I ask the Senator, not only does that have serious economic implications, but doesn't it also reduce our ability to deal on important political and security issues when we are this indebted and this dependent on others in economic terms? They are in a position to give a real jolt to our economy if they choose to do so, which then, it seems to me, restricts our ability to deal on a whole range of other issues we may have with one or another of these countries.

Will the ranking member yield on that point?

Would the Senator agree with me that is an outrageous departure from the traditional practice in terms of how conference committees ought to operate? Traditionally, conference committees have met, both parties have been included in the conference committee, debate has taken place, issues have been raised, and decisions made. The majority may be able to impose their decisions because that is how it gets decided, but there is an opportunity to try to shape the debate and have an influence on what is decided.

In this instance, the Democratic members of the conference committee were completely excluded, except for one show-and-tell meeting that was held, a pro forma meeting.

Yes. Which had to be done; otherwise, presumably, it never would have happened. All these decisions were made by--and only by--the Republican members of the conference committee from the House and the Senate.

Now, it is an abuse of power, in my opinion. It is another reflection of an arrogance of power in terms of how the institution ought to operate. I think it is very important to register the point that this is what transpired. The American people need to understand that this budget resolution was not the consequence of a give-and-take in the normal legislative way. This was done by the majority simply imposing their will.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

As this wall of debt is built up, I want to come back again to the carrying cost on that debt. It has to be understood, in each annual budget, there is going to be a larger and larger amount to cover the interest charge on this expanding debt that is being built up year to year. Furthermore, if we run a risk that other countries are not going to want to hold our paper, as they are doing, we are probably going to have to raise our interest rates. In fact, interest rates are already on the way up, in any event. If you have to raise them even more, to get others to continue to hold our paper, the carrying charge is going to go up.

So the carrying charge is going to go up because the debt is going up, and it is also going to go up because the interest rates will be going up. So there will be a double blow dealt to the American economy, and a bigger and bigger chunk of each year's budget will be eaten up in paying the interest charges on this enormous debt. Isn't that correct?

Will the Senator yield?

The number of people in this country who earn over $200,000 a year is less than 1 percent of all taxpayers, is it not?

It is a tiny group. So this tiny group under this chart will be receiving the overwhelming proportion of this tax cut that is included in this budget resolution.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the $32 billion--the cost of the tax cut that goes to those making over a million dollars, is that just for 1 year?

So, presumably, in the following year it will cost another $32 billion?

That gives you a clear picture of what the priorities are in this budget. The priorities are to give $32 billion in tax cuts to millionaires, and yet to cut the education programs to almost below what they were in 2005; is that correct?

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

The Senator has spoken in a very articulate way about fiscal responsibility. My own understanding is, looking back at history, when we have gone to war, as the President took us to war in Iraq, we have usually raised taxes to help cover the cost of the war or at least cover part of the cost of the war in an effort to be fiscally responsible.

In this administration, we went to war and, if I am not mistaken, at the same time the administration was pushing for tax cuts. So we were again being hit doubly. The cost of the war was being imposed on the budget affecting our deficit and debt situation, and at the same time they were seeking tax cuts--in other words, diminishing revenues--which also affected negatively our deficit and debt situation, and that is contrary to fiscal responsibility and contrary to what has happened in previous war engagements; is that not correct?

Would the Senator yield the floor?

Wasn't the money in order not to do this to education contained in the Senator's amendment coming from closing corporate tax loopholes that had previously been passed by an overwhelming majority in this Senate?

Isn't it a dramatic demonstration of a choice in priorities, that rather than choosing to fund education, to give young people these opportunities which have been paid for, what they now say is, we had to cut the programs because we have a deficit problem?

The very able Senator from Massachusetts took that into consideration when he proposed his amendment because he wasn't going to add to the deficit. He was going to cover the costs of the amendment by closing these egregious loopholes in corporate taxes. They came along and cut the education programs and allowed the egregious tax loopholes to continue. It is a dramatic demonstration of the priorities of this Republican budget.

Absolutely. And the Senator from Massachusetts has been sounding this clarion call. I make reference to the chart the Senator showed earlier, which shows what is happening in terms of our young people going into math and science and engineering as a percent of the 24-year-olds who could go into those fields to develop that kind of competence which we need in the so-called global economy.

Now, as I understand this chart, in 1975, the United States was third in the world, as shown over on the left side of the chart; is that correct?

In 1975, we were third in the world; is that correct?

We are talking now about math, science, and engineering. Everyone talks about technology, the competition we are engaged in, and so forth. How do you compete in that world if you do not train the people and have the professionals with the skills to do it? We went from being third in the world as to the percentage of our young people going into math, science, and engineering, to where now, as of the year 2000, we are 15th in the world, as I read over on the right side of that chart.

We have slipped all the way back; there are 14 countries ahead of us worldwide in terms of the people they are putting into math, science, and engineering.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

I want to make sure I understand the Senator on this very point. As I understand it, the tax loopholes, or at least some of the tax loopholes the Senator was closing in order to be able to fund education, were incentives or inducements in the Tax Code to encourage American corporations to move their investment and operations out of the United States and send them overseas. Is that correct?

Mr. President, I commend my very able colleague from

Massachusetts for a very powerful statement about the priorities in this budget. He is absolutely right.

The budget resolution is the single most important document we deal with in the Congress because it contains within it thousands of decisions that are critical to our national life, all of which reflect our choices about priorities.

As the Senator pointed out, this budget resolution makes it a priority to keep tax loopholes for large corporations, many of which induce them to send jobs overseas, rather than closing those loopholes--which have been overwhelmingly supported by the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats--in order to fund education. It is a clear example of the wrong set of priorities. I thank the Senator, first for his leadership in the Senate which got that amendment adopted, which would have done something for education in this country, and for articulating so well what is at stake here as we move ahead.

The budget presents very fundamental questions to us. What do we establish as priorities? Which programs are important? How do we balance programs with tax cuts, with deficit reduction? In my view, this budget does not reflect the right answers. It contains substantial cuts in a number of important domestic programs, including Medicaid, education, affordable housing--the list goes on and on.

The justification for these cuts is that we have a deficit problem to deal with. If you ask, why are you cutting these programs which we so desperately need, the answer that is given is: Well, we have a big deficit.

But the question that needs to be asked and understood is: Where did this deficit come from to begin with? When President Bush came into office in 2001, he inherited a surplus in the Federal budget. The projection was that we would run a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10-year period. Those were the projections.

In his first budget proposal, which included, in my view, an excessive tax cut, primarily for those at the top of the income scale, he said: We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits. That is what the President said: We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits.

The following year, with the budget already in deficit, having moved from surplus to deficit, the President advocated for another tax cut while promising, and I quote him:

Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-

term.

In fact, the President's budget that year stated that deficits would be so short-term that by today, by now, the Government would be back in surplus. How wrong he was.

Instead of the $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus projected when the President took office, the projections now are for a deficit over the same period of $3.7 trillion. When you factor in, as my able colleague from North Dakota stated earlier in the debate, some of the costs we know are coming, such as the continuing cost of the war in Iraq, the cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax, the cost of some of the President's proposals to make tax cuts permanent, that is a deterioration in our fiscal position of over $9 trillion.

There are a number of reasons for this fiscal reversal. Spending to recover from the attacks of September 11, to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have played a part. But the deficits are not primarily the result of increased spending by the Congress. By far the greatest factor contributing to the return of deficits and these disastrous projections is on the revenue side, and the primary reason on the revenue side is the President's tax cuts.

We are now living with the consequence of those tax cuts: deficits and debt as far as the eye can see. The architects of this budget claim that to deal with these deficits, we must have serious cuts in domestic programs. At the same time these serious cuts in education, health care, and housing are being made, this budget resolution contains billions of dollars in additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as my able colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, pointed out, in 2006 alone, the President's tax cuts are scheduled to give $32 billion to those making over $1 million a year. So for millionaires, there is going to be $32 billion in tax cuts in 2006.

The New York Times, in an editorial earlier this week, recognized that this budget is skewed toward the wealthy. Let me quote from that editorial:

Congress is likely to approve a budget blueprint this week

that manages to be profligate and mean-spirited at the same

time. . . . It calls for generous tax cuts for investors, who

hardly need more help, and for harsh spending cuts for the

needy, who certainly do.

The Times hoped there would be pressure on the drafters of this budget sufficient to ``inject some common sense and human kindness into the process.''

Regrettably, that appears to have been a vain hope. This budget resolution contains $70 billion in tax cuts that are given fast-track procedural protection at the same time there are very deep cuts in a number of domestic programs.

There are those who seek to defend the spending cuts by saying that they are necessary in order to rein in the deficit. I want to say to them that these cuts are not about reducing the deficit; these cuts are about making room for tax breaks for wealthy people.

As the Washington Post reported, ``the cost of those tax cut extensions would more than nullify the savings from the spending cuts.'' Let me repeat that. ``The cost of those tax cut extensions would more than nullify the savings from the spending cuts.''

There are Medicaid cuts--so important to providing health care for our people--and education cuts, which set us back in the effort to fund our schools and undertake educational initiatives, which may well be the best investment America can make in its future strength.

We are failing to face up to the global competition in which we find ourselves, and we are making choices in this budget that are directly contrary to strengthening our economy and strengthening our Nation. Make no mistake about it, the argument that is made that we must cut these programs that are so essential to our people in order to address the deficit misses entirely the point that room is being made in this budget for further tax cuts for very wealthy people.

So the choice of priorities is the tax cuts on the one hand--more tax cuts, excessive tax cuts, for the very top of the income scale on the one hand--and cutting back on education and health care, the environment, and housing. As the Post pointed out and I quoted, the cost of those tax cut extensions would more than nullify the savings from the spending cuts.

These are the wrong priorities, the wrong choices. I urge my colleagues to vote against this disastrous budget resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing two measures to commemorate America's second war of independence--the War of 1812--and aid in the efforts to preserve sites related to this important period in our Nation's history.

Pursuant to legislation that I authored in the 106th Congress, the National Park Service recently completed a study of the feasibility and desirability of designating a Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail commemorating the routes used by the British and Americans during the 1814 Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812.

The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement, completed in March 2004, determined that five of eight trail segments studied fully met the criteria for National Historic Trails and recommended this designation.

The legislation I am introducing today implements the recommendations of the National Park Service's study. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Act amends the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Mikulski is joining with me as a cosponsor of this bill. A similar companion bill has also been introduced in the House by my colleagues Congressmen Cardin and Gilchrest.

The sites along the proposed Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail would mark some of the most important events of the War of 1812. The trail, commemorating the only combined naval and land attack on the United States, begins with the June 1814 battles between the British Navy and the American Chesapeake Flotilla in St. Leonard's Creek in Calvert County, and ends at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, site of the composition of our national anthem, and the ultimate defeat of the British.

In my view, the designation of this route as a National Historic Trail will serve as a reminder of the importance of the concept of liberty to all who experience it. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail will also give long overdue recognition to those patriots whose determination to stand

firm against enemy invasion and bombardment preserved this liberty for future generations of Americans.

The second measure I am introducing today seeks to ensure that the upcoming bicentennial of the War of 1812 and the poem which became our national anthem will be appropriately observed. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Mikulski, Landrieu and Levin in offering this legislation.

The Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act implements another recommendation included in the aforementioned National Park Service study by creating a commission, made up in part by citizens from nine states and the District of Columbia, to ensure a suitable national observance of the War of 1812. The commission is tasked with planning, encouraging, developing, executing and coordinating programs commemorating the historic events that preceded and are associated with the War of 1812. Among other things, the commission is charged with facilitating this commemoration throughout the United States and internationally.

As the bicentennial of the War of 1812 rapidly approaches, a plan to mark the lasting contributions that our forebears made during this critical period in our Nation's history is needed. In my view, both of these measures will work to ensure that these patriots' commitment to the principles of liberty and sovereignty will not be forgotten.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their passage.