Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, the first genocide of the 20th century. One and a half million men, women, and children lost their lives as a result of the violent massacres and extensive deportation carried out by the Ottoman Turkish rulers against their Armenian citizens. Today, as we remember the bravery and sacrifice of the Armenian people in the face of great suffering, we renew our commitment to protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of all humanity.

Nine decades have passed since the terrible blows that befell the Armenian people in 1915. On April 24 of that year, more than 250 Armenian intellectuals and civic leaders in Constantinople were rounded up and killed, in what was the first step in a systematic plan to exterminate the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire. After the round-up, Armenian soldiers serving in the Ottoman army were segregated into labor battalions and brutally murdered. In towns and villages across Anatolia, Armenian leaders were arrested and killed. Finally, the remaining Armenian population, women, children, and the elderly, were driven from their homes and deported to the Syrian Desert.

In reality, ``deportation'' was merely a euphemism for death marches. Ottoman Turkish soldiers allowed brigands and released convicts to kill and rape the deportees at will; often the soldiers themselves participated in the attacks. Driven into the desert without food and water, weakened by the long march, hundreds of thousands of Armenians succumbed to starvation. In areas of Anatolia where deportation was not deemed practicable, other vicious actions were undertaken. In the towns along the Black Sea coast, for example, thousands of Armenians were packed on boats and drowned.

The efforts to annihilate the Armenian population were well documented in first-hand accounts, press reports, and other testimony. Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey at the time, personally made vigorous appeals to stop the genocide, calling it ``a campaign of race extermination'' and ``the greatest horror in history''. Leslie Davis, a U.S. diplomat stationed in eastern Anatolia, had a similar account, writing once to the State Department, ``it has been no secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a race, but the methods used have been more cold-blooded and barbarous, if not more effective, than I had at first supposed.'' Even Germany, Ottoman Turkey's own ally, condemned the Turkish ``acts of horror.''

Despite the testimony from U.S. diplomats who were witness to the events and the abundance of credible, international evidence documenting the Armenian genocide, there are still those who refuse to acknowledge its occurrence. To anyone who doubts this brutal history, I would recommend a visit to the National Archives, where much of the evidence collected by our diplomats, along with survivors' accounts, are stored.

I do not deny that coming to terms with history is a difficult and painful process, as those who lived in South Africa and the countries of the former Soviet bloc can tell us. But the challenge of acceptance does not justify the distortion of truth. Falsifying history insults the memory of those who suffered and threatens our very understanding of justice and humanity.

We have a national interest in seeking that our foreign policy is grounded in the same principles on which this Nation was founded, a respect for the truth, the rule of law, and democratic institutions. Clearly, this was in part the administration's motivation for its recognition last fall of the genocide in Darfur. In his testimony before the

Foreign Relations Committee on September 9, Secretary Powell declared that ``the evidence corroborates the specific intent of the perpetrators to destroy 'a group in whole or in part'.'' This begs the question: if Darfur, why not Armenia? Did the Ottomans not seek to destroy the Armenians to this same extent?

Although Americans of Armenian origin, many of whom came to this country fleeing persecution and looking to rebuild, make up a relatively small community among the multitudes that comprise our Nation, they have enriched our national life beyond proportion to their numbers, in the arts and sciences, in medicine, in business, and in the daily life of communities across the Nation. I support Americans of Armenian origin in calling for recognition of the genocide committed against their relatives 90 years and just a few generations ago. In recognizing this tragedy, we reinforce our commitment to building a world in which history will not repeat itself.

Mr. President, today is Earth Day, founded 35 years ago to celebrate our natural world and encourage efforts to protect its future. As part of that effort, I am introducing today legislation similar to measures I have introduced in previous Congresses that will help protect our Nation's natural resources and improve the visitor experience in our national parks and other public lands. The Transit in Parks Act, or TRIP, establishes a new Federal transit grant initiative to support the development of alternative transportation services for our national parks, wildlife refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Alexander, Akaka, Boxer, Corzine, Dodd, Feinstein, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Levin, Salazar, Schumer, Stabenow, and Wyden, who are cosponsors of this legislation.

Over the last several years, both the Administration and the Congress have demonstrated support for transit in the parks by including either the TRIP Act or a similar initiative in their proposals for the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In fact, the Transit in Parks program was included in the reauthorization bill that passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote during the last Congress. Unfortunately, that legislation was not completed by the House-Senate conference committee before the end of the Congress, and will have to be taken up anew during the current session.

It is in this context that I want to underscore again today some of the principal arguments I have made in past years as to why this legislation is urgently needed. Every year, millions of visitors head to our national parks to enjoy the incredible natural heritage with which our Nation was endowed. But too many of them will spend hours looking for parking, or staring at the bumper of the car in front of them.

Clearly, the world has changed significantly since the national parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, when visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. At that time, travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was long, difficult, and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our Nation's great natural

wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the national park lands to millions of Americans.

Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars have resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has more than 4 million visitors a year. As many as 6,100 vehicles enter the South Rim area in a single summer day. They compete for 1,392 spaces in the Village area. About 150 commercial tour buses enter the South Rim on a typically busy day. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot.

In 1975, the total number of visitors to America's national parks was 190 million. By 2003, that number had risen to 266 million annual visitors--almost equal to one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This dramatic increase in visitation has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other parks: Yosemite, which has more than 3 million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has almost 3 million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Acadia; Bryce; Zion and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent harm to our Nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage.

Visitor access to the parks is vital not only to the parks themselves, but to the economic health of their gateway communities. For example, visitors to Yosemite infuse upwards of $300 million a year into the local economy, which supports almost 9,000 jobs. At Yellowstone, tourists spend more than $200 million annually, which supports more than 6,000 jobs in the park and in adjacent communities. If the parks are forced to close their gates to visitors due to congestion, the economic vitality of the surrounding region would be jeopardized.

The challenge for park management has always been twofold: to conserve and protect the Nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. Until now, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads, primarily for private automobile access. The TRIP legislation recognizes that we need to do more than simply build roads; we must invest in alternative transportation solutions before our national parks are damaged beyond repair.

In developing solutions to the parks' transportation needs, this legislation builds upon a 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, in which the two Departments agreed to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around national parks. The findings in the MOU are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind.

In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or scenic areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas.

On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed.

In addition, the TRIP legislation is designed to implement the recommendations from a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in public lands that I was able to include in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, as section 3039. The Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study confirmed what those of us who have visited our national parks already know: there is a significant and well-documented need for alternative transportation solutions in the national parks to prevent lasting damage to these incomparable natural treasures.

The study examined over 200 sites, and identified needs for alternative transportation services at two-thirds of those sites. The study found that implementation of such services can help achieve a number of desirable outcomes: ``Relieve traffic congestion and parking shortages; enhance visitor mobility and accessibility; preserve sensitive natural, cultural, and historic resources; provide improved interpretation, education and visitor information services; reduce pollution; and improve economic development opportunities for gateway communities.''

In fact, the study concluded that ``the provision of transit in federally-managed lands can have national economic implications as well as significant economic benefits for local areas surrounding the sites.'' The study determined that funding transit needs would support thousands of jobs around the country, while also providing a direct benefit to the economy of gateway communities by ``expand[ing] the number of visits to the site and expand[ing] the amount of visitor spending in the surrounding communities.''

The study identified ``lack of a dedicated funding source for developing, implementing, and operating and maintaining transit systems'' as a key barrier to implementation of alternative transportation in and around federally-managed lands. The Transit in Parks Act will go far toward helping parks and their gateway communities overcome this barrier. This new Federal transit grant program will provide funding to the Federal land management agencies that manage the 388 sites within the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands, including National Forest System lands, and to their State and local partners.

The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources and wildlife habitats, to prevent or mitigate adverse impact on those resources and habitats, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. The program will provide capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. The Secretary of Transportation may make funds available for operations as well. The bill authorizes $90 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2010, consistent with the level of need identified in the study. It is anticipated that other resources--both public and private--will be available to augment these amounts.

The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement outlined in the 1997 MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection, and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The bill further provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. The projects eligible for funding would be developed through the transportation planning process and prioritized for funding by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation. It is anticipated that the Secretary of the Interior would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major national parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are

clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this bill, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional public transit system. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance.

In addition, I firmly believe that this program will create new opportunities for the Federal land management agencies to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the TEA-21 planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands.

The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--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. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities.

As we begin a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and Federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas.

The Transit in Parks program is strongly supported by the National Parks Conservation Association, American Public Transportation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Community Transportation Association, America Bikes, Friends of the Earth, Amalgamated Transit Union, Surface Transportation Policy Project, and others, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

I believe that we have a clear choice before us: we can turn paradise into a parking lot or we can invest in alternatives. As we celebrate the 35th anniversary of Earth Day, I urge my colleagues to support the Transit in Parks Act to ensure that our Nation's natural treasures will be preserved for many generations to come.

Mr. President, today is Earth Day, founded 35 years ago to celebrate our natural world and encourage efforts to protect its future. As part of that effort, I am introducing today legislation similar to measures I have introduced in previous Congresses that will help protect our Nation's natural resources and improve the visitor experience in our national parks and other public lands. The Transit in Parks Act, or TRIP, establishes a new Federal transit grant initiative to support the development of alternative transportation services for our national parks, wildlife refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Alexander, Akaka, Boxer, Corzine, Dodd, Feinstein, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Levin, Salazar, Schumer, Stabenow, and Wyden, who are cosponsors of this legislation.

Over the last several years, both the Administration and the Congress have demonstrated support for transit in the parks by including either the TRIP Act or a similar initiative in their proposals for the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In fact, the Transit in Parks program was included in the reauthorization bill that passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote during the last Congress. Unfortunately, that legislation was not completed by the House-Senate conference committee before the end of the Congress, and will have to be taken up anew during the current session.

It is in this context that I want to underscore again today some of the principal arguments I have made in past years as to why this legislation is urgently needed. Every year, millions of visitors head to our national parks to enjoy the incredible natural heritage with which our Nation was endowed. But too many of them will spend hours looking for parking, or staring at the bumper of the car in front of them.

Clearly, the world has changed significantly since the national parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, when visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. At that time, travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was long, difficult, and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our Nation's great natural

wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the national park lands to millions of Americans.

Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars have resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has more than 4 million visitors a year. As many as 6,100 vehicles enter the South Rim area in a single summer day. They compete for 1,392 spaces in the Village area. About 150 commercial tour buses enter the South Rim on a typically busy day. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot.

In 1975, the total number of visitors to America's national parks was 190 million. By 2003, that number had risen to 266 million annual visitors--almost equal to one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This dramatic increase in visitation has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other parks: Yosemite, which has more than 3 million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has almost 3 million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Acadia; Bryce; Zion and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent harm to our Nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage.

Visitor access to the parks is vital not only to the parks themselves, but to the economic health of their gateway communities. For example, visitors to Yosemite infuse upwards of $300 million a year into the local economy, which supports almost 9,000 jobs. At Yellowstone, tourists spend more than $200 million annually, which supports more than 6,000 jobs in the park and in adjacent communities. If the parks are forced to close their gates to visitors due to congestion, the economic vitality of the surrounding region would be jeopardized.

The challenge for park management has always been twofold: to conserve and protect the Nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. Until now, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads, primarily for private automobile access. The TRIP legislation recognizes that we need to do more than simply build roads; we must invest in alternative transportation solutions before our national parks are damaged beyond repair.

In developing solutions to the parks' transportation needs, this legislation builds upon a 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, in which the two Departments agreed to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around national parks. The findings in the MOU are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind.

In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or scenic areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas.

On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed.

In addition, the TRIP legislation is designed to implement the recommendations from a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in public lands that I was able to include in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, as section 3039. The Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study confirmed what those of us who have visited our national parks already know: there is a significant and well-documented need for alternative transportation solutions in the national parks to prevent lasting damage to these incomparable natural treasures.

The study examined over 200 sites, and identified needs for alternative transportation services at two-thirds of those sites. The study found that implementation of such services can help achieve a number of desirable outcomes: ``Relieve traffic congestion and parking shortages; enhance visitor mobility and accessibility; preserve sensitive natural, cultural, and historic resources; provide improved interpretation, education and visitor information services; reduce pollution; and improve economic development opportunities for gateway communities.''

In fact, the study concluded that ``the provision of transit in federally-managed lands can have national economic implications as well as significant economic benefits for local areas surrounding the sites.'' The study determined that funding transit needs would support thousands of jobs around the country, while also providing a direct benefit to the economy of gateway communities by ``expand[ing] the number of visits to the site and expand[ing] the amount of visitor spending in the surrounding communities.''

The study identified ``lack of a dedicated funding source for developing, implementing, and operating and maintaining transit systems'' as a key barrier to implementation of alternative transportation in and around federally-managed lands. The Transit in Parks Act will go far toward helping parks and their gateway communities overcome this barrier. This new Federal transit grant program will provide funding to the Federal land management agencies that manage the 388 sites within the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands, including National Forest System lands, and to their State and local partners.

The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources and wildlife habitats, to prevent or mitigate adverse impact on those resources and habitats, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. The program will provide capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. The Secretary of Transportation may make funds available for operations as well. The bill authorizes $90 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2010, consistent with the level of need identified in the study. It is anticipated that other resources--both public and private--will be available to augment these amounts.

The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement outlined in the 1997 MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection, and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The bill further provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. The projects eligible for funding would be developed through the transportation planning process and prioritized for funding by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation. It is anticipated that the Secretary of the Interior would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major national parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are

clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this bill, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional public transit system. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance.

In addition, I firmly believe that this program will create new opportunities for the Federal land management agencies to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the TEA-21 planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands.

The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--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. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities.

As we begin a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and Federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas.

The Transit in Parks program is strongly supported by the National Parks Conservation Association, American Public Transportation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Community Transportation Association, America Bikes, Friends of the Earth, Amalgamated Transit Union, Surface Transportation Policy Project, and others, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

I believe that we have a clear choice before us: we can turn paradise into a parking lot or we can invest in alternatives. As we celebrate the 35th anniversary of Earth Day, I urge my colleagues to support the Transit in Parks Act to ensure that our Nation's natural treasures will be preserved for many generations to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to Anne L. Blumenberg, one of Baltimore's most skillful attorneys and equally one of its most dedicated and visionary citizens. Anne recently retired as executive director of the Community Law Center, which develops innovative legal strategies to assist Baltimore's community organizations and neighborhoods.

Anne was born and raised in Baltimore's Waverly neighborhood, and she returned to Baltimore after receiving her law degree from Catholic University's Columbus School of Law. In 1983, she and a group of like- minded lawyers and community activists founded the Community Law Center. In its early days the center focused primarily on public safety as the path to neighborhood survival, depending on volunteer lawyers to carry out its work. Under Anne's leadership, the center's attorneys pioneered the use of nuisance laws as a litigation strategy to address quality-of-life issues, including housing conditions and drug activity, in Baltimore neighborhoods. The center had such great success with these suits that in 1996, the Maryland General Assembly passed the community rights bill--developed in large measure by the center-- granting Baltimore City community associations legal standing to seek direct enforcement of housing, building, zoning, and health codes as a remedy to a public nuisance.

Recognizing that creating healthy neighborhoods begins but does not end with public safety, Anne Blumenberg expanded the Community Law Center's programs to include economic development and real estate issues. Today the center has successful projects to end predatory lending and flipping practices and to end the blight of vacant properties in city neighborhoods. Further, the volunteer spirit that gave the center its start lives on in its pro bono project, which currently has 185 active pro bono attorneys and has opened over 500 cases serving hundreds of organizations in the Baltimore area.

In addition to the hours she has dedicated to the Community Law Center, Anne Blumenberg has generously donated her time to serve as a board member to numerous other community organizations, including Civil Justice, Inc., Empowerment Legal Services, the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, and the Lawyer's Clearinghouse. And she has literally ``written the book'' on starting a nonprofit organization: her manual, ``Starting a Non-Profit Organization: A Practical Guide,'' is now in its fourth edition.

Anne Blumenberg was truly a visionary. She saw, earlier than most, how legal tools could be used to improve the lives of some of the city of Baltimore's poorest and most vulnerable citizens, and she transformed her vision into a creative, vigorous and effective public services law firm. As a result of the programs Anne Blumenberg built at the Community Law Center, Baltimore's neighborhoods have come alive again. Residents now have the tools they need to fight the flipping of homes by unscrupulous lenders; to remove drug dealers from their corners; to acquire vacant houses, renovate them, and put them up for sale; and more broadly, to promote citywide policies that will improve the quality of their lives. In short, thanks to Anne Blumenberg's hard work and dedication, Baltimoreans are once again in control of their neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods, which do so much to define Baltimore's character, are blooming.

Mr. President, first of all, if I could just say preliminarily, in order not to split the united front in support of this amendment, I am not going to get into a debate between the quality of the Virginia crabcake and the Maryland crabcake, although I must note it is the Maryland crabcake that has always held preeminence in that discussion.

I commend my colleague from Maryland for a very innovative and carefully reasoned response to a crisis situation. This is a clear example of legislative craftsmanship that addresses the issue and does it in a way that does not open up a lot of unintended consequences or other possibilities. It does not constitute any major restructuring of the immigration laws or anything of that sort. This is really an effort in a very focused, almost laser-like way, to address this specific problem.

The problem is the following: Under the administrative set up, an employer cannot seek an H-2B visa until within 120 days of when it would be used or exercised. That means that people who need summer employees cannot come in right at the beginning of the year to seek the H-2B visas. What happened, of course, this year is people in the earlier part of the year--the winter people in a sense--came in, and used up all of the 66,000 visas that were available so people who have relied on this program over the years to carry out their businesses were shut out altogether. Of course, that raises very dire prospects for the operation of these small businesses all across the country.

We have underscored the crisis confronting the seafood business in Maryland and Virginia, but innkeepers in Maine, hotel operators in Florida, and businesses all across the country confront similar problems with respect to being able to bring in these H-2B visa workers.

This amendment maintains all the requirements that existed previously. In other words, the employers must still demonstrate they have sought to find American workers for these jobs. That is a current requirement. That is maintained in this amendment.

These employers, some of them, have made extraordinary efforts to do that, visiting college campuses, attending job fairs, exploring every possible way they can find workers. Many have gone well beyond what I think has been previously required in terms of meeting that requirement. But, they have not been able to find the workers. They need these H-2B workers.

What my colleague, Senator Mikulski, has done--I think in a very measured way--is, if you previously brought in an H-2B worker and that worker has then gone back at the end of the limited time during which they were permitted to come into the country to do

the job, you can, despite the fact we have now bumped up against the ceiling, bring that worker or workers that helped you meet your employment situation back in. No new worker would come into the country under this provision who had not been here before as part of this H-2B program. So, in effect, you are saying to someone: Look, you have come for the last 2 or 3 years as part of this program, so it is going to be available to you to come again. And you say to the employer seeking to bring them, you can bring back that workforce in order to meet your work situation.

In that sense, it is not an expansion of the general availability of the program. You are not broadening who can partake of it. You must have previously participated in the program in order to be able to come in again. I think that is a very innovative way to address the situation. It will enable these small businesses to function.

It is important to recognize that it is not the functioning of the particular business involved, but it is the functioning of other businesses, dependent upon the particular business that needs these workers, that will be affected most. If you cannot do the processing of the seafood, then the people down the line who depend on getting that seafood in order to do their business are going to be adversely affected as well. So there is a ripple effect that goes out through the economy which raises the threat of having a substantial economic impact, at least in some areas of the country.

I also want to underscore the amendment, as I understand it--and my colleague can correct me if this is not so--maintains all of the existing penalties that would apply to an employer who might misrepresent any statement on their H-2B petition. In other words, employers would still be held responsible in terms of how they conducted their effort. As I mentioned earlier, they are required to go through all of the necessary measures to ensure they have not been able to find available, qualified U.S. citizens to fill these jobs before they file an H-2B visa application.

This amendment is limited in time. It is limited in scope, but it would address the current crisis situation. It might not totally address it, but we are confident it would do so sufficiently to enable most, if not all, of these businesses to carry out their functions.

I think it does not raise larger questions and, therefore, because it has been very carefully developed, I think it constitutes an appropriate response to the situation we are now confronting. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It does the job. It does it in a very direct and focused way, and it will enable us to work through these problems while we await general revisions of the immigration laws.

This doesn't open up that particular path which I know would concern some Members of this body.

I again commend my colleague for very carefully working out an amendment. I know how much he has consulted with people in the administration and colleagues here in the Senate. I very much hope this body will adopt this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The Senator made the point that this addresses those workers who have played by the rules. In other words, they have come, they have worked, and gone back. They have met all of the requirements. Of course, they pay taxes while they are here. We know they are here. They are followed and documented.

But I want to add a dimension: It also addresses the employers who have played by the rules by seeking to get their workers through the system legally.

Mr. President, I will read from the article in the Baltimore Sun:

Despite their frustration, the owners say they will not

turn to an obvious alternative work force. ``I am not going

to hire illegals,'' said one of the owners. ``It is against

the law.''

He made the point that they have done everything legally. This H-2B program is a win-win situation. The workers pay taxes, the Government knows who they are, and they get checked at the border. So you have employers who want to play by the rules and employees who have played by the rules. This amendment focuses on them and gives them a solution to a very pressing problem.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to re-designate Catoctin Mountain Park as the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. This measure was unanimously approved by the full Senate during the 108th Congress, but unfortunately, was not considered in the House.

I spoke during the 108th Congress about the need to enact this legislation and I want to underscore some of the key reasons today. Catoctin Mountain Park is a hidden gem in our National Park System. Home to Camp David, the Presidential retreat, it has been aptly described as ``America's most famous unknown park.'' Comprising nearly 6000 acres of the eastern reach of the Appalachian Mountains in Maryland, the park is rich in history as well as outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors can enjoy camping, picnicking, cross-country skiing, fishing, as well as the solitude and beauty of the woodland mountain and streams in the park.

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

In 1942, concern about President Roosevelt's health and safety led to the selection of Catoctin Mountain, and specifically Camp Hi-Catoctin as the location for the President's new retreat. Subsequently approximately 5,000 acres of the area was transferred to the State of Maryland, becoming Cunningham Falls State Park in 1954. The remaining 5,770 acres of the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was renamed Catoctin Mountain Park by the Director of the National Park Service in 1954. Unfortunately, the Director failed to include the term ``National'' in the title and the park today remains one of eleven units in the National Park System--all in the National Capital Region-- that do not have this designation.

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

My legislation would help to address this situation and clearly identify this park as a unit of the National Park System by renaming it the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. The Maryland State Highway Administration, perhaps in anticipation of the enactment of this bill, has already changed some of the signs leading to the Park. This bill would make the name change official within the National Park Service and on official National Park Service maps. Moreover, the mission and characteristics of this park--which include the preservation of significant historic resources and important natural areas in locations that provide outdoor recreation for large numbers of people--make this designation appropriate. This measure would not change access requirements

or current recreational uses occurring within the park. But it would assist the visiting public in distinguishing between the many units of the State and Federal systems. It will also, in my judgment, help promote tourism by enhancing public awareness of the National Park unit.

I urge approval of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to re-designate Catoctin Mountain Park as the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. This measure was unanimously approved by the full Senate during the 108th Congress, but unfortunately, was not considered in the House.

I spoke during the 108th Congress about the need to enact this legislation and I want to underscore some of the key reasons today. Catoctin Mountain Park is a hidden gem in our National Park System. Home to Camp David, the Presidential retreat, it has been aptly described as ``America's most famous unknown park.'' Comprising nearly 6000 acres of the eastern reach of the Appalachian Mountains in Maryland, the park is rich in history as well as outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors can enjoy camping, picnicking, cross-country skiing, fishing, as well as the solitude and beauty of the woodland mountain and streams in the park.

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

In 1942, concern about President Roosevelt's health and safety led to the selection of Catoctin Mountain, and specifically Camp Hi-Catoctin as the location for the President's new retreat. Subsequently approximately 5,000 acres of the area was transferred to the State of Maryland, becoming Cunningham Falls State Park in 1954. The remaining 5,770 acres of the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was renamed Catoctin Mountain Park by the Director of the National Park Service in 1954. Unfortunately, the Director failed to include the term ``National'' in the title and the park today remains one of eleven units in the National Park System--all in the National Capital Region-- that do not have this designation.

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

My legislation would help to address this situation and clearly identify this park as a unit of the National Park System by renaming it the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. The Maryland State Highway Administration, perhaps in anticipation of the enactment of this bill, has already changed some of the signs leading to the Park. This bill would make the name change official within the National Park Service and on official National Park Service maps. Moreover, the mission and characteristics of this park--which include the preservation of significant historic resources and important natural areas in locations that provide outdoor recreation for large numbers of people--make this designation appropriate. This measure would not change access requirements

or current recreational uses occurring within the park. But it would assist the visiting public in distinguishing between the many units of the State and Federal systems. It will also, in my judgment, help promote tourism by enhancing public awareness of the National Park unit.

I urge approval of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to add a 35.5 mile segment of a proposed new highway, extending south of Interstate 68 near Cumberland, MD to Corridor H in West Virginia, to the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). Joining me in co- sponsoring this legislation is my colleague Senator Mikulski.

The development of a north-south Appalachian highway corridor has long been a priority for elected officials, community leaders and citizens in the Potomac Highlands region of western Maryland, West Virginia and neighboring Pennsylvania counties. At least two Maryland State economic development task forces over the last decade have identified a north-south corridor as their leading priority for the region. In order to help determine the need, potential alignments as well as the projected economic benefits and the social, transportation and environmental impacts of upgrading north-south corridors, six years ago, I helped secure a grant from the Federal Highway Administration to support a multi-state study. That study was completed in 2001 and identified two corridors as having the greatest potential for benefiting Appalachian economic development the US 219 Corridor in the north from I-68 in Maryland to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the US 220 Corridor in south from Corridor H in West Virginia to I-68 in Maryland. The study also found that upgrading US 220 South of Interstate 68 would support the largest number of potential new jobs, 7,800-8,600 jobs, with the highest relative growth--19 percent--of any of the corridors and have fewer impacts than the alternatives.

While US 220 north of I-68 is part of the ADHS, the segment south of the interstate is not currently part of the system, although it serves Appalachia. This area in Allegany County, MD--a county that has experienced some of the highest rates of unemployment and poverty in the State--has been targeted for economic development and job growth in the ``One Maryland'' economic development program. Major employers in the area--American Woodmark, Aliant Techsystems and MeadWestvaco--as well as others that might look at this region for the location of their next plant currently depend on a two-lane roadway running through residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. The area is well served by an important east and west corridor, I-68 (ADHS Corridor E), but North South transportation is inadequate and hampers the economic prosperity potential of Allegany and Garrett Counties and many of the surrounding Pennsylvania and West Virginia communities.

Over the past four years, and with additional funding provided by the Congress in the Fiscal 2003 Transportation Appropriations bill, Maryland and West Virginia have been undertaking a detailed project planning phase of the 35.5 mile segment of US 220 south that was recommended in the feasibility study. Improvements which have been proposed include a four-lane divided highway, most of which would be on a new alignment, with at-grade intersections. Fifteen miles of the proposed road improvements are in Maryland and 20.5 miles in West Virginia.

These upgrades would increase safety and alleviate traffic congestion between Cumberland and Keyser and provide an important link to the 83.2 miles of Appalachian Development Highways in Maryland and in the system of 28 corridors throughout the 13 Appalachian States. The corridor would interconnect several important ADHS corridors including the East- West Corridors P in Pennsylvania, E (I-68) in Maryland & West Virginia, H in West Virginia and Virginia along with the ADHS North-South Corridor O and Corridor N from Pennsylvania to the North. Currently ARC Corridors O & N dead end at I-68, and the closest interstate quality road continuing south is I-81 seventy miles east, or I-79 that is seventy miles to the west. The new Appalachian highway would also provide important linkages to the bi-State, Maryland and West Virginia, Greater Cumberland Airport, rail facilities in the area, and population centers of Cumberland, Maryland, Keyser, West Virginia, Romney, West Virginia, and Moorefield, West Virginia.

The Congress recognized the need to help bring the Appalachian Region into the mainstream of the American economy in 1965 when it created the Appalachian Region Commission and authorized the Appalachian Development Highway System. Now, some 40 years later, with the original ADHS more than 85 percent complete or under construction, it is time to provide critical linkages to the east-west ADHS corridors, population centers, other inter-modal facilities such as air and rail, and the existing interstate system and to further boost the region's opportunity to advance towards economic parity. I hope that the Congress will swiftly approve this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to add a 35.5 mile segment of a proposed new highway, extending south of Interstate 68 near Cumberland, MD to Corridor H in West Virginia, to the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). Joining me in co- sponsoring this legislation is my colleague Senator Mikulski.

The development of a north-south Appalachian highway corridor has long been a priority for elected officials, community leaders and citizens in the Potomac Highlands region of western Maryland, West Virginia and neighboring Pennsylvania counties. At least two Maryland State economic development task forces over the last decade have identified a north-south corridor as their leading priority for the region. In order to help determine the need, potential alignments as well as the projected economic benefits and the social, transportation and environmental impacts of upgrading north-south corridors, six years ago, I helped secure a grant from the Federal Highway Administration to support a multi-state study. That study was completed in 2001 and identified two corridors as having the greatest potential for benefiting Appalachian economic development the US 219 Corridor in the north from I-68 in Maryland to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the US 220 Corridor in south from Corridor H in West Virginia to I-68 in Maryland. The study also found that upgrading US 220 South of Interstate 68 would support the largest number of potential new jobs, 7,800-8,600 jobs, with the highest relative growth--19 percent--of any of the corridors and have fewer impacts than the alternatives.

While US 220 north of I-68 is part of the ADHS, the segment south of the interstate is not currently part of the system, although it serves Appalachia. This area in Allegany County, MD--a county that has experienced some of the highest rates of unemployment and poverty in the State--has been targeted for economic development and job growth in the ``One Maryland'' economic development program. Major employers in the area--American Woodmark, Aliant Techsystems and MeadWestvaco--as well as others that might look at this region for the location of their next plant currently depend on a two-lane roadway running through residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. The area is well served by an important east and west corridor, I-68 (ADHS Corridor E), but North South transportation is inadequate and hampers the economic prosperity potential of Allegany and Garrett Counties and many of the surrounding Pennsylvania and West Virginia communities.

Over the past four years, and with additional funding provided by the Congress in the Fiscal 2003 Transportation Appropriations bill, Maryland and West Virginia have been undertaking a detailed project planning phase of the 35.5 mile segment of US 220 south that was recommended in the feasibility study. Improvements which have been proposed include a four-lane divided highway, most of which would be on a new alignment, with at-grade intersections. Fifteen miles of the proposed road improvements are in Maryland and 20.5 miles in West Virginia.

These upgrades would increase safety and alleviate traffic congestion between Cumberland and Keyser and provide an important link to the 83.2 miles of Appalachian Development Highways in Maryland and in the system of 28 corridors throughout the 13 Appalachian States. The corridor would interconnect several important ADHS corridors including the East- West Corridors P in Pennsylvania, E (I-68) in Maryland & West Virginia, H in West Virginia and Virginia along with the ADHS North-South Corridor O and Corridor N from Pennsylvania to the North. Currently ARC Corridors O & N dead end at I-68, and the closest interstate quality road continuing south is I-81 seventy miles east, or I-79 that is seventy miles to the west. The new Appalachian highway would also provide important linkages to the bi-State, Maryland and West Virginia, Greater Cumberland Airport, rail facilities in the area, and population centers of Cumberland, Maryland, Keyser, West Virginia, Romney, West Virginia, and Moorefield, West Virginia.

The Congress recognized the need to help bring the Appalachian Region into the mainstream of the American economy in 1965 when it created the Appalachian Region Commission and authorized the Appalachian Development Highway System. Now, some 40 years later, with the original ADHS more than 85 percent complete or under construction, it is time to provide critical linkages to the east-west ADHS corridors, population centers, other inter-modal facilities such as air and rail, and the existing interstate system and to further boost the region's opportunity to advance towards economic parity. I hope that the Congress will swiftly approve this legislation.

Mr. President, I will be brief. I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I do it out of respect for his past efforts in addressing this issue, along with Senator Helms. I have to confess that, at the time, I thought we should pay all of our arrearages without those conditions. We had a very difficult situation in the U.N., but in the end, the situation was negotiated out and an agreement was reached on the 27 percent. So as long as we pay that amount, we are not falling into arrears.

If we drop the 27 percent down to 25 percent, as I understand the amendment of the chairman of the committee would do, we immediately throw ourselves back into a situation where we start building up arrears. In effect, we end up going back on an agreement that was reached after very intense negotiations with the U.N., as I recall, led by Ambassador Holbrooke at the time.

Interestingly enough, the current administration, the Bush administration, as I understand it, is supportive of the position that the Senator from Delaware is offering with this amendment. This amendment is consistent with what the administration has sought in terms of extending the 27-percent cap.

Now, the bill as it came out of the committee extended that cap permanently. This amendment would extend it for 2 years. I understand that is the administration's position. Given all of that and the importance of this, I would hope that the chairman of the committee would find it within his reasonable judgment to accept this amendment. I do not think we ought to be having an intense division over this because it seems to me it makes extraordinarily good sense to do this amendment. Earlier, we imposed a unilateral cap. It did not work. We had very complicated relationships. We were able to work that out. We were able to pay off our arrears.

Our influence is going to be diminished in any international body if we are sitting at the table and our representative is in a position where the United States is in arrears to these very institutions that we helped to found and establish and to make a success over the years.

In fact, we are going to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations this year. So it seems to me that is a very sensible amendment. It does pull back a bit from what was in the committee-reported bill, from a permanent 27 percent cap to a 2-year extension, which conforms to the administration's position. But to go down to 25 percent, as the underlying amendment proposes, would simply recreate all of the difficulties we previously encountered and previously went through.

In a sense, I appeal to the chairman of the committee to see the wisdom in the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware as a very reasonable, positive, and constructive way in which to address this issue.

So I very much hope he will find it possible to accept the amendment of the Senator from Delaware as we proceed in trying to move this bill through the Senate.

What does the Senator's amendment do?

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

It is important that we take note of the needs of this rapidly growing senior population. In 2000, the population over 65 years of age was 34.7 million. This number is expected to grow to over 50 million by 2020. By the year 2030, nearly one-fifth of the United States population will be above 65 years of age.

In recognition of the importance of this issue, in 1999 Congress established the Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors--``Seniors Commission''--to assess the Federal role in senior housing, health and supportive services. The Seniors

Commission made a number of significant findings. For example, the commission found that seniors require a wide array of housing options with access to services, including meal preparation, transportation, health care, and assistance with daily activities. According to the Seniors Commission, over 18 percent of senior citizens--over 5.8 million seniors--who do not reside in nursing facilities have difficulty performing their daily activities without assistance. Over a million of these seniors are severely impaired, requiring assistance with many of their basic tasks. Many other seniors, those that can perform their daily functions, still require access to health care, transportation and other services. Without enhanced housing opportunities, such as service-enriched housing or assisted living facilities, these seniors find it increasingly difficult to remain outside of nursing homes or other institutional settings. In fact, the Seniors Commission found that ``many seniors across the income spectrum are at risk of institutionalization or neglect due to declining health and the loss or absence of support and timely interventions.'' For many seniors, in-home care, service-enriched housing, retrofitted homes and apartments, and assisted living-type facilities are sorely needed so that seniors can access necessary services where they live.

While there are numerous Federal programs that assist seniors and their families in meeting these needs, they are fragmented across many government agencies, with little or no coordination. In fact, the Seniors Commission found that ``the most striking characteristic of seniors' housing and health care in this country is the disconnection of one field from another.'' For example, housing assistance is available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, while health care and supportive services are most likely accessed through various branches of the Department of Health and Human Services, such as the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services and the Administration on Aging, as well as through the Department of Transportation and the Department of Labor.

The Seniors Commission concluded that ``the time has come for coordination among Federal and State agencies and administrators.'' The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors Act of 2005,'' answers the commission's call to action by implementing the recommendation for better federal coordination.

Through a high-level interagency council the Federal Government will take a simple, but critical, step in addressing this fragmentation. This Council will have a variety of functions. The council will review all Federal programs designed to assist seniors, identify gaps in services, make recommendations about how to reduce duplication, identify best practices for relevant programs and services, and most importantly, work to improve the availability of housing and services for seniors. The council will also monitor, evaluate, and recommend improvements in existing programs and services that assist seniors in meeting their housing and service needs at the Federal, State, and local level, and will work to more effectively coordinate programs at the federal level, as well as at the state level, where many of the decisions regarding health and service needs are made. In addition, the council will be responsible for collecting and disseminating information, through a variety of means, about seniors and the programs and services relating to their needs. Through collaboration with the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Statistics and the Census Bureau, the council will consolidate data on these needs and identify and address unmet data needs.

With improved collaboration and coordination among the Federal agencies and our State partners, we can ensure that seniors are better able to access housing and services. To ensure its effectiveness, the council will be comprised of top-level officials who oversee the programs which assist seniors in this country, including the Secretaries of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Health and Human Services; the Department of Labor; the Department of Transportation; and the Department of Veterans Affairs; as well as the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and the Administrator of the Administration for the Aging.

This is a step we must take. It is essential that we make it easier for seniors and their families to access housing and supportive services together, so that when faced with difficult decisions, they do not have to navigate a confusing maze of programs and services, and work through multiple bureaucracies. We must also make it simpler for developers and providers to link housing and services so that greater supportive housing opportunities are available to the senior population. Through the Interagency Council, it is my hope that we will move toward a model of providing housing and services to seniors around the country.

If we are to successfully address these growing needs, it is clear that much work must be done. The establishment of an Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors is a critical first step in this endeavor. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill together with letters of support be printed in the Record.

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

It is important that we take note of the needs of this rapidly growing senior population. In 2000, the population over 65 years of age was 34.7 million. This number is expected to grow to over 50 million by 2020. By the year 2030, nearly one-fifth of the United States population will be above 65 years of age.

In recognition of the importance of this issue, in 1999 Congress established the Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors--``Seniors Commission''--to assess the Federal role in senior housing, health and supportive services. The Seniors

Commission made a number of significant findings. For example, the commission found that seniors require a wide array of housing options with access to services, including meal preparation, transportation, health care, and assistance with daily activities. According to the Seniors Commission, over 18 percent of senior citizens--over 5.8 million seniors--who do not reside in nursing facilities have difficulty performing their daily activities without assistance. Over a million of these seniors are severely impaired, requiring assistance with many of their basic tasks. Many other seniors, those that can perform their daily functions, still require access to health care, transportation and other services. Without enhanced housing opportunities, such as service-enriched housing or assisted living facilities, these seniors find it increasingly difficult to remain outside of nursing homes or other institutional settings. In fact, the Seniors Commission found that ``many seniors across the income spectrum are at risk of institutionalization or neglect due to declining health and the loss or absence of support and timely interventions.'' For many seniors, in-home care, service-enriched housing, retrofitted homes and apartments, and assisted living-type facilities are sorely needed so that seniors can access necessary services where they live.

While there are numerous Federal programs that assist seniors and their families in meeting these needs, they are fragmented across many government agencies, with little or no coordination. In fact, the Seniors Commission found that ``the most striking characteristic of seniors' housing and health care in this country is the disconnection of one field from another.'' For example, housing assistance is available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, while health care and supportive services are most likely accessed through various branches of the Department of Health and Human Services, such as the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services and the Administration on Aging, as well as through the Department of Transportation and the Department of Labor.

The Seniors Commission concluded that ``the time has come for coordination among Federal and State agencies and administrators.'' The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors Act of 2005,'' answers the commission's call to action by implementing the recommendation for better federal coordination.

Through a high-level interagency council the Federal Government will take a simple, but critical, step in addressing this fragmentation. This Council will have a variety of functions. The council will review all Federal programs designed to assist seniors, identify gaps in services, make recommendations about how to reduce duplication, identify best practices for relevant programs and services, and most importantly, work to improve the availability of housing and services for seniors. The council will also monitor, evaluate, and recommend improvements in existing programs and services that assist seniors in meeting their housing and service needs at the Federal, State, and local level, and will work to more effectively coordinate programs at the federal level, as well as at the state level, where many of the decisions regarding health and service needs are made. In addition, the council will be responsible for collecting and disseminating information, through a variety of means, about seniors and the programs and services relating to their needs. Through collaboration with the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Statistics and the Census Bureau, the council will consolidate data on these needs and identify and address unmet data needs.

With improved collaboration and coordination among the Federal agencies and our State partners, we can ensure that seniors are better able to access housing and services. To ensure its effectiveness, the council will be comprised of top-level officials who oversee the programs which assist seniors in this country, including the Secretaries of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Health and Human Services; the Department of Labor; the Department of Transportation; and the Department of Veterans Affairs; as well as the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and the Administrator of the Administration for the Aging.

This is a step we must take. It is essential that we make it easier for seniors and their families to access housing and supportive services together, so that when faced with difficult decisions, they do not have to navigate a confusing maze of programs and services, and work through multiple bureaucracies. We must also make it simpler for developers and providers to link housing and services so that greater supportive housing opportunities are available to the senior population. Through the Interagency Council, it is my hope that we will move toward a model of providing housing and services to seniors around the country.

If we are to successfully address these growing needs, it is clear that much work must be done. The establishment of an Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors is a critical first step in this endeavor. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill together with letters of support be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask what the time situation is and the parliamentary situation.

I yield myself 3 minutes of the 7\1/2\ minutes that I have available.

Amendment No. 156

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Madam President, first, let me say at the outset, because I neglected to do so the other day in the general debate, that I commend both the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking minority member of the Budget Committee for the fair and expeditious way in which consideration of this resolution was conducted in the committee. We have a new chairman. It is always a challenge, and I want to express to him my recognition of the fair process conducted in the committee, which is, of course, essential to the Senate working through controversial issues and trying to reach a solution.

This amendment would restore approximately $1.89 billion in cuts that are in the administration's proposed budget to the Community Development Block Grant Program and a number of other development programs that have been proposed for elimination. It would bring all of those programs back to the 2005 level. It is my view, and the view of a majority of the Members of the Senate expressed in a letter sent to Chairman Gregg and Senator Conrad, that the administration of these 18 programs should remain as they are currently constituted.

In other words, the community development block grant should continue to be housed at HUD, the rural programs at USDA, and this effort to shift all of them over to the Department of Commerce, an idea which has not been considered, not examined, not brought to the floor of the Congress, ought not to be carried through.

I am going to focus on the CDBG Program primarily because very substantial cuts have been proposed in the budget.

Roy Bernardi, the Deputy Secretary of HUD, a former mayor of Syracuse, has said that the foundation of virtually all community and economic development occurring across the Nation is CDBG. This is the Deputy Secretary of HUD, formerly mayor of Syracuse. He said:

We must continue to support and build upon programs that

work, those that have a proven record of flexibility and the

ability to fit in with locally determined needs. CDBG is such

a program and ranks among our Nation's oldest and most

successful programs.

I have two letters strongly supporting full funding for the CDBG Program at HUD, signed by a host of State, city, and county organizations, such as the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and the National Governors Association.

I ask unanimous consent those two letters be printed in the Record.

Madam President, the private sector strongly supports

I yield half of that time to the Senator from Michigan.

I yield the balance of my time.

Madam President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota for a very eloquent statement about the effectiveness of the CDBG program. Of course, he has absolutely firsthand experience with it having been a mayor of one of our great cities. I appreciate his analysis of the worth of the CDBG program.

I simply make this point, and this is a broader priorities question: The amendment I have offered derives the funding, in order to restore the money, by closing tax loopholes--the very provisions that passed the Senate overwhelmingly last year 92 to 4 on the FSC/ETI bill. A lot of these provisions were dropped in conference. The ones dropped would produce $27 billion over a 5-year period. So there is not much argument about the necessity of closing these loopholes. The overwhelming judgment here was that ought to be done. That would then avoid cutting other programs.

There is a dilemma here. I understand that. If we are trying to keep things neutral as far as contributing to the deficit is concerned, then the question becomes, do you cut other programs in what is, I think, an already extremely tight budget. So you fund CDBG, but you would diminish the funding for housing, education, and other programs--across the board. The alternative is to find a revenue source in which there is general agreement in terms of an abuse of the Tax Code.

Now, the chairman refers to that as taxing and spending. I do not know how you spend if you do not tax unless you are going to run up a deficit. I regard that as responsible budget making.

You always have to use reasoned judgement and analysis in terms of what is fair and right. The proposal here is to close some of those tax loopholes. There has been an overwhelming judgment that those loopholes should be closed. The amount of revenue produced by closing the loopholes dropped in conference is three times what it would cost to restore the CDBG Program. Thus closing only some of them would produce sufficient revenue to restore these programs.

I thank the Chair.