Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for S. 976, the Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that we will soon be voting on the nomination of Virginia Hopkins for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This nomination has been on the calendar for a number of months now and I am pleased that we are finally going to have an up or down vote.

Virginia Hopkins is a highly qualified candidate. She will be an important addition to the Federal bench. Like others who know Virginia, I have a high regard for her intellect and her integrity. She is a woman of the law who understands and respects the constitutional role of the judiciary and, specifically, the role of the federal courts in our legal system.

Having been a practicing attorney for more than a quarter century, Virginia has concentrated her legal practice in wills and estate planning, as well as intellectual property law and civil litigation. Virginia has a strong record of trying cases in both the federal and state courts for a broad range of individual and corporate clients. Without question, I believe it is fair to say that Virginia Hopkins is an experienced and skilled attorney.

In addition to being a devoted wife and mother of two children and a skilled attorney, Virginia is also active in her community. She has served on the board of the United Way of East Central Alabama, while also remaining active in her church. She is a graduate of the University of Alabama and also Virginia Law School.

Again, I am pleased to support the nomination of Ms. Virginia Hopkins to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. I am confident that she will serve honorably and that she will apply the law with impartiality and fairness. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting her nomination as I believe that she will serve our nation with the honor and dignity required of the federal judiciary.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would first like to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Bunning in crafting this legislation. In addition, several members of the Banking Committee, from both sides of the aisle, are co-sponsors on S. 2238. The Banking Committee unanimously voted to favorably report S. 2238 on March 30, 2004. This has truly been a bipartisan effort.

This is important legislation that will go a long way in bringing the flood insurance fund toward financial soundness, while protecting existing property owners. The pilot program established in Section 102 will help to address the mitigation of severe repetitive loss properties. These properties, while only a small percentage of insured properties, constitute a large share of claims paid. FEMA estimates that while repetitive loss properties only account for approximately 1 percent of all insured properties, these properties account for over 30 percent of amounts paid in claims. In addition, most of these properties were constructed before the development of flood insurance rate maps, and are paying subsidized rates for flood insurance.

S. 2238 provides an additional $40 million annually for mitigation activities. This additional funding will allow families that have lived through several floods and suffered substantial harm, both financial and emotional, to either flood-proof their home or have their home bought-out.

I also want to commend Senator Sarbanes for his efforts. Title II of S. 2238 is largely his creation. I believe Title II will ensure that families displaced by floods receive adequate and timely assistance.

The managers' amendment to S. 2238 represents several technical and conforming changes. First the definition of repetitive loss property is narrowed. This change was made to assure concerned parties that the pilot program would be targeted at those properties that have indeed suffered the greatest

losses. The managers' amendment also clarifies the funding allocation of the additional mitigation dollars that will be provided under the pilot program. A more explicit allocation is needed to insure that those States hit hardest by flooding receive an adequate flow of funding. The managers' amendment also extends the pilot program and the National Flood Insurance Program until September 30, 2009.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Henry Moody, a dedicated civil servant from Alabama, who passed on April 26, 2004.

Born on April 1, 1932, in Jemison, AL, to Henry and Mattie Moody, Henry was one of 13 children. He was raised on the Moody Farm in Jemison, attended Jemison High School and Auburn University. Upon graduating from college, he enlisted in the military and went on to receive many honors.

Following Henry's military service, he began work at the Department of Veterans Affairs in Montgomery, AL, where he dedicated 36 years of his life. He served in a number of capacities including loan examiner and appraiser and chief appraiser with the Construction and Valuation Service. In 1976, he was appointed to assistant loan guaranty officer, and in 1982, he became loan guaranty officer. Henry served this position with dedication and commitment, and was regarded as a top loan guaranty officer in the country.

There are few people in this world who dedicate so much of themselves to their work. Everyday, Henry Moody remembered the mission of his job--to provide quality housing for all veterans. Despite his numerous accomplishments, Henry retained a humble spirit. He always banked a person's character and not just their worth, and wanted every person who came into his office to leave with a good experience. He never allowed his office staff to use the excuse, ``the computers are not working.'' If that was the case, Henry would find the files himself since many families had driven for miles to see him. His favorite part of working at the VA was that every day was different, providing him with new challenges, and with new people to meet. Everyone who came in contact with him was encouraged by his smile and his helpful spirit.

Henry was recognized for his dedication and devotion to his job with many honors including induction into Home Builders Association of Alabama's, HBAA, prestigious Alabama Building Industry Hall of Fame in 1990. Additionally, former Alabama Governor Fob James proclaimed July 3, 1995, as ``Henry Moody Day.'' Both awards were a fitting tribute for Henry's commitment to providing quality housing to our country's veterans.

Henry Moody will be remembered as a pioneer who served as an example for others. He made an impact on all who had the pleasure of meeting and knowing him. He lived by two important phrases, ``This too shall pass,'' and ``God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.'' Alabama is certainly a better place for having Henry Moody as one of our own. He will be greatly missed.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and the legacy of former President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan served our country with honor and distinction, and I feel privileged to have the opportunity to reflect on the contributions he made to our country and to the world.

Upon hearing the news of his death, I thought back to the footprints he left on my memory. He was, indeed, one of the greatest leaders, I believe, of our time, and I was honored to know him.

President Reagan provided our country with an enormous amount of hope following a period of national remorse and confusion about the direction of our country and about its place in the world. Let us not forget the context into which he emerged to seize his place in history and to move the United States forward with a determination and an optimism about the future that was so recently lacking.

The ghost of Vietnam haunted our foreign policy and the specter of Watergate informed our politics.

The election of Ronald Reagan, however, truly changed America. He instilled hope that every American could be optimistic about his or her future; hope that communism would not endure and that freedom and democracy could ultimately vanquish the forces that sought to pull our country, and many others, into the abyss of despair and hostility that permeated much of the world; hope that personal freedom without the encumbrances of big government would revitalize the economy; hope that the rejuvenated armed forces he would lead as Commander-in-Chief could make the United States once again truly the leader of the Free World in a struggle for survival against the Soviet Union.

President Reagan's eternal optimism gave our country a renewed sense of self, a belief that the American dream was possible and that every individual had the opportunity to create his or her own success. Ronald Reagan believed that each new day was filled with high purpose and opportunity for accomplishment. He gave America back the hope we had lost for many years.

President Reagan's leadership and courage were central to ending the Cold War. He was certain that freedom and democracy could prevail in all corners of the globe if only the one country with the capacity to do so would step in and show the way.

Many Americans who were not yet born or were too young to understand could not appreciate what this man accomplished. The first half of the 20th Century was marked by warfare on a global scale. The First World War--the war to end all wars--had decimated much of Europe. A generation was lost to the trenches and newly introduced technologies of destruction such as the machine gun and the tank.

The war that followed, World War II, managed to go well beyond its predecessor, as the failure of European diplomacy once again dragged the continent into the horrors and devastation that man continued to wrought. The epic struggle against the forces of fascism, a struggle we remembered this past weekend with the anniversary of the Normandy landings, was a fight against evil in every sense of the word. Its ending, however, set the stage for a new type of conflict--a conflict that would take the second half of the century to resolve, mercifully without the nuclear war that existed as the logical culmination of the stand-off that came to be known as the cold war.

The skills, strengths and enormous fortune that kept the cold war from turning hot transcended, of course, multiple presidential administrations. It was brought to its successful resolution, however, through the vision and strength of exactly one man: President Reagan. Decades of conflict management, in which experienced diplomats and elected officials sought primarily to prevent nuclear war and to contain the Soviet threat, had succeeded in preventing nuclear war. That was an incredible feat, to be sure.

What set Ronald Reagan apart, however, was his vision of a world without the nuclear stand-off that had become an indelible image in the public psyche of virtually the entire world. What set Ronald Reagan apart was his visceral belief that the United States, and the freedom and prosperity it represented, had to, and could, not just contain the threat but eliminate it without the awful specter of nuclear war coming to fruition.

Derided by his opponents both here and abroad as a dangerous cowboy, President Reagan stood firm in his beliefs and led the country to victory. He believed, correctly, and at variance with the views of many a university professor and politician, that the United States could force the Soviet Union over the cliff on which it rested, buttressed on the backs of the millions it held in its tyrannical grip.

This was a truly great man.

Limited government, lower taxes, and individual responsibility will also be part of President Reagan's legacy. He believed that each American and each community were the best problem-solvers. Rather than making Government bigger to address the challenges our country faced, Reagan stood firm in his commitment to the contributions that could be made through personal empowerment and a renewed sense of political and social responsibility.

I was just a second-term congressman when President Reagan came into office. Although a Democrat at the time, I closely identified with his commitment to lower taxes, limit government and rebuild the military. I shared President Reagan's conservative philosophies, and he helped me, and millions of other Americans, have a restored faith in the purpose of our Government.

I also recall a time when President Reagan asked me to breakfast at the White House. I, a second-term Congressman at the time, was certainly impressed. I had always been a conservative Democrat, and he had hoped that I would change parties, as he had done when the Democratic Party ceased to represent the values he held dear. I declined his offer to do so at the time, explaining my strong desire to work to fix the Democratic Party from within. The President knew better, telling me that the party was in the midst of a transformation that would not be reversed any time soon. It took me more years to fully appreciate the President's wisdom. But appreciate it, I did, and I followed his lead in abandoning the party of my youth in deference to another. While I took a little longer to change than he would have liked, he did provide me with much of the foundation as to why I needed to leave the Democratic Party. I have always appreciated his guidance, humility and humor.

I believe history will treat Ronald Reagan well. He uplifted a frustrated country through his optimism and hope. He changed a troubled world with his devotion to the spread of freedom. Ronald Reagan embodied the American spirit, and our country and the world are forever grateful for his service.

I offer my condolences to Mrs. Reagan and the entire family. They have endured much heartache with his illness, much grief with his passing, and much joy with his life. My thoughts and prayers are with them in this difficult time.

May God bless Ronald Reagan and his memory.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 8 at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Suedeen G. Kelly, to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 10 a.m. in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on Medicare Drug Card: Delivering Savings for Participating beneficiaries.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 2436, a bill to reauthorize the Native American Programs Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 at 10 a.m. on ``DOJ Oversight: Terrorism and Other Topics'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The Honorable John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General, will testify.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Aging be authorized to meet for a hearing on Arthritis: A National Epidemic during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square'' on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 2 p.m. in SD-226.

Panel I: The Honorable Chet Edwards, United States Representative, (D-TX); The Honorable Mary Landrieu, United States Senator, (D-LA); The Honorable Richard Shelby, United States Senator, (R-AL).

Panel II: William ``Barney'' Clark, Balch Springs, TX; Nashala Hearn, Muskogee, OK; The Honorable Roy Moore, Former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Steven Rosenauer, Bradenton, FL; Kelly J. Shackelford, Chief Counsel, Liberty Legal Institute, Plano, TX; J. Brent Walker, Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, Washington, DC.

Panel III: Professor Richard W. Garnett, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School, South Bend, IN; Professor Vincent Phillip Munoz, Civitas Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Assistant Professor of Political Science, North Carolina State University, Washington, DC; Professor Melissa Rogers, Wake Forest University Divinity School, Winston-Salem, NC.

Witnesses are listed in alphabetical order, not necessarily in order of testimony.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on national parks

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 931, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program to reduce the risks from and mitigate the effects of avalanches on visitors to units of the National Park System and on other recreational users of public land; S. 1678, to provide for the establishment of the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center for Dinosaur National Monument in the States of Colorado and Utah, and for other purposes; S. 2140, to expand the boundary of the Mount Rainier National Park; S. 2287, to adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State of Louisiana, and for other purposes; and S. 2469, to amend the National Historic Preservation Act to provide appropriation authorization and improve the operations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I am speaking in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the motion to table the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.

As chairman of the Banking Committee which has jurisdiction over legislation pertaining to U.S. economic sanctions, I am more than a little familiar with the issue addressed by the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. While his intent may be laudatory, the language of his amendment and the manner in which it has been proposed are not.

There is a reason all administrations oppose legislation such as this amendment. Not only do they argue that it infringes on their constitutional right to conduct foreign policy--an argument we admittedly employ or ignore as the need arises--but, more importantly, the White House invariably recognizes the potential for the law of unintended consequences to come into play. There has been no opportunity for those consequences to be considered in a truly deliberative manner because the legislation has not been brought before the Banking Committee for any type of hearing.

I take a backseat to no Member in this body in my support of strong economic sanctions as a vital tool in our foreign policy and national security arsenal, and I have been a strong advocate of closing loopholes that weaken those sanctions. My support for the Helms-Burton legislation was a case in point.

In addition, as one of the few Members of the Senate who opposes weakening the Government's ability to prevent the flow of military- sensitive technologies to countries with poor records in the areas of proliferation and support for terrorists, I believe my credentials in this area are quite strong.

The intent, as I understand it, behind the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey is certainly meritorious. We all support the war against terrorism and the need to staunch the flow of dollars to terrorist organizations. Under my chairmanship, the Banking Committee has been investigating the issue of terrorist financing for over a year, and has additional hearings scheduled on the subject in the weeks ahead.

We are taking this issue very seriously. We are examining the structure of the Federal Government to stem the flow of dollars to terrorist organizations. We work very closely with the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets and Control which is the Government's vehicle for enforcing U.S. economic sanctions to further prevent these organizations from gaining access to sources of revenue with which to fund their operation. OFAC, the Federal office responsible for enforcing sanctions, opposes the Lautenberg legislation.

I stand ready to work with the Senator from New Jersey to ensure U.S. economic sanctions have the requisite team to accomplish the objective for which they are imposed. But this amendment is not the way to go.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion to table.

Mr. President, I rise today to praise the Acting Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, for his wonderful leadership and great job he has done under very difficult circumstances as the Army copes with the stresses of heavy involvement in the Global War on Terrorism, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as he juggles many demands and complex priorities as the Army continues to transform.

Acting Secretary Brownlee is indeed a highly distinguished public servant who has performed with great humility, energy and passion on behalf of all our active and reserve soldiers and their families. I was particularly impressed with the article ``Army of One'' by Katherine McIntire Peters which appeared in the latest edition of Government Executive magazine and believe that every member should take time to read it. I ask that this article be printed in the Record in its entirety.

The article follows.

Army of One

Acting Secretary Les Brownlee once again leads troops

through tumultuous times. On Christmas Eve 2001,

Undersecretary of the Army Less Brownlee took an Air Force C-

130 transport plane to Baghram Air Base in Afghanistan, where

about 200 soldiers were battling al Qaeda and the terrorist

organization's Taliban sponsors. It was a dangerous flight.

To reduce their chances of drawing enemy fire, the pilots

landed at night, with their lights extinguished. Brownlee

spent the evening and following day meeting with soldiers,

listening to their experiences and offering encouragement and

praise for their service. He had been in office less than two

months when he made the Christmas visit, but it established a

pattern. With little fanfare and no press attention, Brownlee

has spent every holiday since then in the field with

soldiers.

Brownlee's boss at the time, Army Secretary Thomas White,

was the public face of the Army, testifying before Congress

and participating in Pentagon press briefings with Defense

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, while Brownlee was quietly

managing an expanding portfolio of responsibilities. In March

2002, Brownlee was made acting assistant secretary of the

Army for civil works, taking on oversight responsibility for

the Army Corps of Engineers, a position that would last until

this past August, when President Bush appointed John Paul

Woodley to the job. In the meantime, Rumsfeld fired White

last April and Brownlee became acting Army secretary. For

four months last year, Brownlee simultaneously held the

positions of Army secretary. For four months last year,

Brownlee simultaneously held the positions of Army secretary,

undersecretary and director of civil works. During this time,

the Army went to war in Iraq and began the biggest civil

works project since World War II--the $18 billion program for

rebuilding Iraq. Despite his enormous role in what is

arguably one of the most profound shifts in U.S. military

posture, Brownlee has received very little media attention, a

fact that clearly suits him. ``He's a humble and completely

dedicated man,'' says John Hamre, deputy Defense secretary

during the Clinton administration and a former colleague of

Brownlee's when both worked on the Senate Armed Services

Committee, Brownlee for Republicans and Hamre for Democrats.

``He does not seek press. He refused to let me have a dinner

in his honor when he became undersecretary. He just said, `I

don't think that's right.' Les is one of my best friends,

and I said `Les, please, this is for you,' and he said,

`Please don't do it. I know how much you care,' '' Hamre

recalls. ``He completely wants to dissolve his own

personal identity into the good of the Army,'' Hamre says.

``Without question, he is one of the finest people I've

ever worked with.''

a `get-it-done fellow'

If a Hollywood producer were casting a film about the Army,

the service secretary might very well look like Brownlee. In

an interview in March he appeared tanned and fit, handsome,

square-jawed, blue-eyed, silver-haired. He wore a navy suit,

a white shirt French cuffs and a red, white and blue tie, the

uniform of official Washington, but for the Silver Star pin

in his lapel, a hard-earned award for valorous conduct on the

battlefield nearly four decades ago. Brownlee earned two

Silver Stars in Vietnam, along with three Bronze Stars and a

Purple Heart. He may look like a politician or a banker, but

he is a soldier's soldier. Brownlee's bearing is formal and

gentlemanly and he speaks in a measured, low voice. After

introducing himself at the beginning of an interview, his

first comment is: ``I've never really done this before.'' A

press hound he is not. Brownlee's resume is remarkably suited

to his responsibilities. A highly decorated infantry company

commander in Vietnam, he served a full career in the Army

before retiring as a colonel in 1984, after serving as

executive officer to James Ambrose, one of the most dynamic

Army undersecretaries in modern history. ``I though he was a

real comer and a very effective fellow,'' recalls Ambrose.

``I think of Brownlee as a superb organizer--a get-it-done

fellow.''

After leaving the Army, Brownlee went to work on the staff

of Sen. John Warner, R-VA., a stalwart on the Senate Armed

Services Committee. Three years later, Brownlee joined the

committee staff, where he worked for 14 years, several years

as staff director under the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the

committee chairman whose failing health greatly impaired his

participation in Senate business. ``Les single-handedly

ensured the authorization bills were produced in some very

difficult years,'' recalls Hamre. ``Had it not been for Les

to hold the committee together and move those bills forward .

. . there were a couple of years we weren't going to have

authorization bills. Les made it happen.

While working for the Senate, Brownlee oversaw some of the

most profound changes in military posture since the Korean

War. He was a major player in decisions surrounding the

reduction in military forces and the cancellation of major

weapons programs following the end of the Cold War, and he

played a key role in establishing requirements aimed at

helping the services navigate the strategically messy decade

of the 1990s.

In the summer of 2001, Bush administration officials asked

Brownlee if he would take the job as Army undersecretary. He

was still mulling it over on the morning of Sept. 11, when he

turned on the television in his Senate office in time to

watch terrorists fly a second plane into the World Trade

Center towers in New York. A short while later he spoke to

his son, A U.S. attorney in Roanoke, VA., who told him: ``You

know you have to take the job now.'' ``I knew he was right,''

says Brownlee.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the University of Alabama School of Law for their outstanding ranking among the country's law schools. U.S. News and World Report recently released its annual list of the Top 100 Law Schools, and ranked the University of Alabama School of Law fortieth in the Nation. This ranking places the Law School in the top tier of law schools nationwide, which is phenomenal considering the institution was ranked in the third tier just 8 years ago in 1996. As a graduate of the law school myself, I am proud to see their elevation to one of the premier law schools in the Nation.

I believe that much of the school's success must be attributed to the dean of the Law School, Kenneth Randall. Dean Randall holds four law degrees, including a doctorate from the Columbia University School of Law, 1988; a master's from Columbia, 1985; a master's from Yale University, 1982; and a juris doctor degree from Hofstra University, 1981. Additionally, Dean Randall received a bachelor of arts degree in English literature from Aldelphi University on Long Island. Indeed, his educational background is outstanding, and he has demonstrated a true enthusiasm for the law.

Since taking the reins as dean in 1993, Dean Randall has provided a clear

vision for the institution. He takes great pride in the success of the law school, and has done so since joining the faculty in 1985. I am hopeful that his career path keeps him here in Tuscaloosa for many years to come.

The education of our young people is critical to the success of our Nation, and the University of Alabama School of Law is committed to providing students with the tools necessary to succeed. I believe the dedication of Dean Randall, the administration, faculty, and alumni has created an environment that allows students to achieve their goals and exceed their own expectations.

I extend my sincerest congratulations to the University of Alabama School of Law for its remarkable success and look forward to celebrating more achievements in the future.

Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2005 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

This is the same amendment that I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget.

Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``. . . . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.''

I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.

Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts.

A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the government demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs.

More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment.

On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Government spent more than $318 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined.

We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently more than $7 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments.

Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much.

We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2005 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

This is the same amendment that I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget.

Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``. . . . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.''

I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.

Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts.

A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the government demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs.

More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment.

On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Government spent more than $318 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined.

We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently more than $7 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments.

Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much.

We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

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

As the chairman of the Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, I, too, wish to echo the adamant view of Chairman Stevens that this provision must be enacted into law in the next few weeks.

Mr. President, I will work with my colleagues from Michigan to address this issue in conference and provide this critical funding for their transit systems.