Floor Statements

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am proud to join the Senator from Vermont today introduce the Artist-Museum Partnership Act. He and I have introduced this legislation in the past, and we hope that our colleagues will see this bill for what it is: a reasonable solution to an unintentional inequity in our tax code.

This legislation would allow living artist to deduct the fair-market value of their art work when they contribute their work to museums or other public institutions. As the tax code is currently written, art collectors are able to deduct the fair market value of any piece of art they donate to a museum. However, if the artist who created that same piece of work were to donate it, he or she would only be able to deduct the material cost of the work, which may be nothing more than a canvas, a tube of paint, and a wooden frame. Thus, there exists a disincentive for artists to donate their work to museums. The solution is simple: treat collectors and artists the same way. This bill would do just that.

Certainly, this bill would benefit artists, but more importantly, the beneficiaries would be the museums that would receive the art work and the general public who would be able to view it in a timely manner. This change in the tax code would increase the number of original pieces donated to public institutions, giving scholars greater access to an artist's work during the lifetime of that artist, as well as provide for an increase in the public display of such work.

I would like to thank Senator Leahy for his work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation. The fiscal impact of the Artist-Museum Partnership Act on the federal budget would be minimal, but the benefit to our nation's cultural and artistic heritage cannot be overstated. This minor correction to the tax code is long overdue, and the Senate should act on this legislation to remedy the problem.

Mr. President, this morning's paper has in it once again, as we often get here in Washington, a poll. It seems everything we do is focused on polls and what the people think. This poll is on the question of whether there is a crisis in Social Security. Frankly, the numbers are confusing, because it depends on the definition. If the question is whether there is a problem, there is a majority who say there is a problem; there is a smaller percentage that say there is a crisis, and so on. It gets very confusing.

I would like to speak today in answer to the fundamental question posed by the poll, and do what I can to shed some light on the question of what condition Social Security is in.

I am not a newcomer to this. We have held hearings in the Joint Economic Committee, while I have been chairman, examining this question. We have a body of institutional knowledge that we have put together now over the past year and a half. I want to pose and I hope answer three fundamental questions here today that can be the basis for the debate on Social Security.

Those questions are: No. 1, is there a problem? No. 2, if so, how big is it? No. 3, when will it hit?

With those three questions in mind, let us go forward. Individuals come to me and ask these questions through the lens of their individual situation. Is there a problem with Social Security? They are really asking, Is there a problem for me in Social Security? The answer to that question is a question: When were you born?

Stop and think for a minute of your own birth date, and then address the question, Is Social Security going to be a problem for me? If you were born in the 1930s, as I was, or if you were born in the 1940s, as my wife was, or if you were born in the 1950s, as my nieces and nephews were, the answer is no, there is not a problem for you with respect to Social Security. Your benefits will be paid. They will be paid at the full level the law requires. You do not have a problem with Social Security.

If you were born in the 1960s, as my children were, the question of whether you have a problem depends on how long you will live. If you were born in the 1960s and you live into your eighties, chances are in the last few years of your life the Social Security benefits are going to be cut quite dramatically. If you manage to die before you get to age 80, then you won't have a problem.

If you were born in the 1970s, it is almost certain you will have a problem. And if you were born in the 1980s, it is guaranteed that the Social Security benefits will have to be cut before you reach retirement age.

For these young pages sitting here, it is very clear that if we don't start to do something now, you will be penalized for your youth. The Social Security benefits will be seriously curtailed for you.

Let us review some history to put some flesh on the bones as to whether there is a problem. Think of Social Security in these terms: It is a little like a lottery. A lottery works this way: A lot of people pay in, and only some people get paid out. So it produces winners and losers. With Social Security, a lot of people pay in, and not all of them get money out.

Here are the statistics which demonstrate what has been happening to this lottery. In the 1940s, 54 percent of the workers who paid into the system lived long enough to be winners. This is the ideal political situation, because the losers were dead. They were not in a position to protest that they had paid in and had gotten nothing out. Fifty-four percent in 1940 of the men--and in 1940 our workforce and retiree population was almost entirely male--got money out of the lottery and the other 46 percent who had paid in got nothing, but they weren't complaining because they were dead.

But then the women started to join the workforce, and now women make up as high a percentage of the workforce as men, and the age kept going up. Today, 72 percent of the men who paid into the lottery are eligible for benefits, and 83 percent of the women who paid into the lottery are eligible for benefits. Whereas it was 54 percent who were winners in 1940, it is now 80 percent who are winners, and the number keeps going up.

There is another factor. This shows how many people get into the winner side who are going to be drawing money from Social Security. How long did they stay there? In 1940, once a man got to retirement age, he would stay there on the average for 12 years. Women--there were fewer of them who were in the program--lived for 14.7 years. But the numbers kept going up. Today, a man will be in the program for 15 years, and a woman for nearly 20. The average time people draw out their Social Security benefits has gone up from 12 to 18--a 50-percent increase.

You have many more people who get into the program by virtue of living beyond the age of 65, and then once they are in the program they stay longer.

What is the obvious result of this kind of change in demographics? Let us see what has happened to the pool of people paying in.

In 1945, there were 42 people paying in for every one person drawing out. That is true because the program was still new enough that there were not enough people old enough to take advantage of it. That came down dramatically, as you would expect it would, as more and more retirees came on. In the 1950s, 5 years later, the number was down to 17. Now it is down to 3, and the projections are that it will go down to 2. You cannot have that kind of a lottery where only two people are paying in for every person who is drawing out, while the people who are drawing out are growing as a percentage of the whole program.

How do we deal with this? How have we dealt with this historically over this period? This is how we have dealt with it. Take the 50-year period from 1945 to 1995, and this is the list of tax rates that have been applied to Social Security. For 50 years of time, we have run into one of these demographic problems. We have solved it by raising the tax rate.

I would like to demonstrate what Franklin Roosevelt and Congress in 1936 promised the American people on this issue of tax rates. This is the photograph of the brochure that was distributed to every recipient of Social Security in 1936. ``Security In Your Old Age, Social Security Board, Washington, DC.''

Here is the quote from that pamphlet that was distributed to every Social Security beneficiary. ``Beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.''

If ever there was a promise the Government made that the Government broke, that is the promise.

Let us go back to the previous chart that shows the history.

This is the 3 percent that was promised in the 1930s; this is the 12.4 percent we are paying 50 years later. That is a 300-percent increase in tax rate. That is not 300 percent in dollars. That is a 300 percent increase in the rate to keep up with the demographic situation we have seen.

I asked three questions: Is there a problem? How big is it? When will it hit?

I have cited the history. Now it is time to get prospective and talk about what is coming.

All of the demographic statistics I have quoted are shown here on this chart. It starts in 1950, and here is where we are now. This is the percentage of Americans who are 65 or older. It has been going up. Yet, it leveled off starting around 1990, and stayed stable; even went down a little. But starting in 2008, something is going to happen. I stress the 2008, because a lot of the accountants have ignored that year, and said, No, the crisis is in 2018, or 2042, or 2042 isn't right, it's 2052.

Here are the demographic realities of what we are facing. Starting in 2008, this line is going to start up dramatically and steeply, and over the period of the next 30 years the percentage of Americans who are 65 and older will double.

When will it hit? It will start to hit in 2008. That is not a long way off. That is within the term for which I was just elected--the 6- year term that the people of Utah gave to me--that this problem is going to start to hit us. We have to deal with it or 30 years from now we are going to end up with a population twice the percentage of the level it is now and no solution.

Let's look at what the Social Security Administration says this will do. This is the chart of current benefits, current law. Here is the revenue line; here is the cost line. How do we fill in the hole of the cost line that is much higher than the revenue line? This hole by itself is $1.5 trillion. Where is that $1.5 trillion going to come from to pay the benefits? It will have to come from either increased tax revenues or increased borrowing to the public. Or it will have to come from some kind of increased rate of return on the money coming in down here. Those are the only three ways to deal with it.

We should understand, once again, the pressure will start in 2008. It will be gradual but it will build. And over the next 30 years, it will overwhelm us if we do not either raise the taxes, cut the benefits, or increase the rate of return.

The proposals of what to do about this range across a wide spectrum of ideas. The President has focused on an idea that he thinks will raise the rate of return on the income coming in. Others have focused on taxes. That is, indeed, how we have handled this for the last 50 years. We have always raised taxes. Some have said we have to begin to adjust the benefits. All of these proposals should be on the table. All of these proposals should be discussed in perfectly good faith. I am willing to discuss anything.

As I said at the outset, we have a history now in the committee that I have chaired of examining these issues. We believe we understand the realities of the past and the challenges and opportunities of the future. We are willing to discuss with anyone any of these proposals and responsibilities.

Remember, there is a problem. It is at the very least a $1.5 trillion problem. It is going to start to hit us in 2008. Surely we in this Chamber can in good faith recognize these facts and deal with them in a spirit of cooperation, reach out to the White House and try to find a solution so these pages will not, in fact, be penalized for their youth and find themselves in a situation where they do not get the benefits their grandparents and others received. They will be paying into the system. They will not get the benefits the others have received unless we lock arms, cooperate, and produce a solution.

My focus today has been to review the history of where the problem has been and review the prospective demographic realities we face. At some future time I will outline some of the solutions my committee has discovered might very well work as we try to find a way to deal with this very real problem.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Senator from Illinois began by saying that the facts were different than those I had outlined. I would ask him to tell me where my facts are wrong. He referred to the GAO and the CBO, all of which are fully aware of the facts I quoted, and all of which, to my understanding, endorsed the facts I quoted. So I would like to know where factually I was in error.

That is correct.

Madam President, is the Senator from Illinois aware of the fact that the Comptroller General of the United States, who runs GAO, has used the 2008 figure because the 2008 date is the date the baby boomers start to retire? Is the Senator from Illinois aware of the fact that I did not say there is a looming crisis that hits us in 2008, that what I said was the pressure on the Social Security system will begin in 2008 and will build from that date to the point that ultimately $1.5 trillion will have to be raised to fill in the hole in the trust fund, once we cross the line where the amount coming in does not meet the amount going out, and that the 2008 figure is the beginning of the crisis? By no means did I imply or state that 2008 was indeed a crisis point.

Madam President, the State of the Union Message has become a great moment in American political theater. Originally, State of the Union Messages, which are called for in the Constitution, were submitted to the Congress in writing. Perhaps it is a demonstration of the fact that we have gotten into the world of modern communications that it has now become not just a presentation to the Congress, but, through the medium of television and radio, it has become a speech to the Nation.

So the Nation gathers around electronically to listen to its elected leader describe what is going on in the country and in the world. We had that experience last night. Last night's was one of the better State of the Union Messages we have had.

In today's world we have instant polling, we have instant results. This morning's hotline reports there are two polls out, one saying that 86 percent of those who viewed the speech liked it; the second poll-- CBS, less favorable to the President--says it was only 80 percent of the people who viewed the speech liked it. And according to the Gallup poll, 77 percent of those who liked it now believe President Bush is leading the country in the right direction.

This is a home run, for a speech to have that kind of a reaction and make that kind of an impact on those who listened to it. It was a departure, in my view, from the traditional format that has settled in on State of the Union Messages--not a complete one but a partial departure in that State of the Union Messages have become laundry lists where Presidents have made a one-sentence or one-paragraph reference to the issues that are of great importance to a variety of special interest groups, so that each member of a special interest group can wait anxiously in the hope his or her moment will come when the President will say something nice about what he or she thinks is important.

There was some of that in the speech last night. You cannot have a modern State of the Union Address without it. But there was far less than we usually see because last night's speech was primarily a thematic statement of the President and his world view, both domestic and international.

As I listened to the speech unfold and caught that theme, I realized this is a President who has a truly broad and far-reaching world view.

His primary focus was on the future. His primary concern, both domestic and international, was on the benefit of what we might do that would accrue to our children and our grandchildren.

We have had a lot of conversation so far about Social Security. The President did spend a good deal of time on Social Security. While I am praising the President, I will join with my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle to say that I think he made one mistake in his presentation. He used a word which, if I had been in conversation with him and his speechwriters, I would have recommended he drop. The word was ``bankrupt.'' The Social Security system will not go bankrupt.

If we do nothing, what will happen if we follow the impulse of those who say there is nothing that needs to be done will be that when the account balances currently listed under the heading of the Social Security trust fund run out, there will still be money coming in in the form of payroll taxes. It will simply not be enough to cover the obligations going out that have been laid there. So the Social Security Administration will have to adopt some kind of strategy to deal with that. Maybe it will be like the gas lines. If your birthday is in an even numbered year, you get a check this month. If it is an odd numbered year, you have to wait until next month. Maybe it will be some kind of alphabetical choice, or maybe everybody will just be told: We can't send out any checks this month. Wait another 30 days and we will do the best we can.

By technical accounting terms, that is not bankruptcy, but by any standard, that is not a result we want. So while I would say to the President, don't use the term ``bankrupt'' because, as an accounting term, that is

not directly correct, I do say to the President: Thank you for having the courage to lay out the facts that virtually everyone understands and knows.

The fact is that Social Security is under irreducible pressure from the demographic trends in which we find ourselves today. There are trends that we like. We are all living longer. We are all healthier. The Nation is seeing more and more of its workers survive into old age. Who could be against that? But the references that have been made in the Chamber about 1983, why don't we just do what we did in 1983, which was basically to kick it down the road so it could get dealt with later on, don't apply now, because we are on the verge of the retirement of the baby boomers.

As I was driving in this morning, I heard the radio talk about 77 million baby boomers and when do they start to retire. When do they start to put the pressure on the system? It is not 2048, when all of us are dead. It is not 2018, when the projection is that the lines will start to cross between money coming in and money going out. It is 2008. It is within the term of those of us who just got elected. Within our next 6-year term the pressure on Social Security will begin to build. In 2008, it won't be overwhelming pressure. In 2009, it won't break the system. But it will begin, it will continue, and it will grow. We need to do something about it now or future generations will look at us and say we were the ones who were irresponsible, we were the ones who buried our heads in the sand, and we were the ones who said: Let somebody else take care of it somewhere down the road. If we want to do the responsible thing, we act in this Congress.

What struck me about the President's proposal is that he did not lay down an edict and say: This is what it has to be or I won't sign it. He listed a bunch of different solutions, most of which have been proposed over the years by Democrats, and then made the statement: They are all on the table. In other words, let's talk. And the boos that came in the Chamber--and I have never heard that in all of the State of the Union Messages I have ever heard--the boos that came in the Chamber as the President laid that down said: We are not willing to talk. We are not willing to talk to you, Mr. President. We are so offended by the idea that you say there is something that has to be done that we will not even engage in this dialog.

They are making a tremendous mistake when they take that position. Because the President said, once again: Here are the various proposals. He quoted a number of Democrats as to the proposals. He put forward his own proposal in general fashion, but he made the specific quote: It is all on the table. The reaction that came back from a portion of the people on the other side of the aisle was: We are not willing to talk. We are not even willing to have the conversation.

The message that sends to the young worker just graduating from high school who is saying: I don't want to be there in my career when the Social Security Administration has to decide which checks to send out or which months to pass up or which benefits to say we can't afford, I want the Congress to start doing something now so when I retire, I can see certainty--I think the people in that situation will look at what happened last night and say: The person we must depend on to lead to the solution of the problems that we will have in our lifetimes is President Bush.

Let's leave Social Security to make one other comment about the speech. I thought this was very much a theme speech. The theme was the future, and the underlying force behind the President's theme was his optimism and his conviction that the future can be better, better domestically, better for workers who are looking forward to a career and then retirement. The same sense was included in his statement about foreign affairs. The future can be better.

He talked about Afghanistan. The future is already better in Afghanistan. I have a high school and college classmate who does business in Afghanistan. Can you imagine that--a businessman from Utah who is doing business in Afghanistan. He says to me: Bob, you can't believe how marvelous it is, as an American, to walk up and down the streets of Kabul and have people grab you and hug you and thank you and say: What has happened in Afghanistan is magnificent. The future of Afghanistan is much brighter because of what George W. Bush did.

We ignore that because it is overwhelmed by events in Iraq. But as was pointed out by the President, what happened last Sunday makes it clear that the future in Iraq is much brighter because of what George W. Bush did.

As he talked about the future and his optimism and his conviction that what we do now is important for the future, it all came together in the most dramatic moment of the speech, when the woman from Iraq, with her ink-stained finger, embraced the mother of the dead marine who demonstrated America's resolve to bring freedom and liberty to the world. I don't think there were many dry eyes in the Chamber when that happened. And it was not scripted. It could not have been scripted.

I once said to Karl Rove: George W. Bush is as good a President as Ronald Reagan, but he is not as good an actor. Last night he wasn't acting. We saw the real George W. Bush, and we saw the real emotion as the woman from Iraq reached out to comfort and thank the mother of the dead marine.

Freedom is on the march in the world, and the future looks brighter than it otherwise would have been if it had not been for the actions of George W. Bush.

I close as I began: These speeches have become American political theater and fairly predictable. Last night's was an exception. Eighty- six percent of the people who watched it liked it. To get that kind of support from the American people is an extraordinary accomplishment, and the President deserves congratulations for having brought it off.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 3, 2005. The purpose of this hearing will be to examine the effects of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) on U.S. imports and exports of cattle and beef.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 3, 2005, at 10 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on U.S. military operations and stabilization activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

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 Thursday, February 3, at 10 a.m., to receive testimony regarding forecasting the future: U.S. energy challenges in the global context.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 3, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in the Senate Dirksen Office Building, Room 226.

Agenda:

Legislation: S. 5, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005; Grassley, Feinstein, Hatch, Kohl, Kyl, Schumer, Sessions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 3, 2005, for a full committee hearing on Benefits for Survivors.

The hearing will take place in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, Thursday, February 3, 2005, from 2 p.m.-5 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Madam President, I understand we are going to soon be voting on the nomination of Mike Leavitt to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I have the privilege of being one of Mike Leavitt's friends, one of his political associates, and one of his strongest supporters. I introduced him to the committee at the time of his confirmation hearings. I don't want to add much to the comments I made there, but I do want to take the occasion to note the Senate action with respect to his confirmation and to assure my colleagues here in the Senate, as well as any who might be listening, that the United States is very fortunate to have a man of Mike Leavitt's stature available to us to serve in this important Cabinet-level position.

He served as a Governor but as a Governor who was very innovative in many of the areas where innovation will be called for in his new assignment. He served as a business executive, building a business, growing a business, helping a business to survive. He understands the impact of extra taxes on small businesses, and he will be appropriately prudent, not only in the way he spends money but in the way he promulgates regulations that can impact small business.

He and his wife Jackie are beloved throughout Utah. He is one of only two men ever to be elected to three successive terms as Governor in the history of the State, and there are those who believe that if he had decided to seek a fourth term, he would have received it without much difficulty. He retired with a very high approval rating. He brings that, plus the performance in his position as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to his new assignment.

On behalf of the people of Utah, I wish him well, and I urge my Senate colleagues to give him unanimous confirmation. He will be a superb Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area Act.

The story behind and about the Mormon pioneers' 1,400-mile trek from Illinois to the Great Salt Lake Valley is one of the most compelling and captivating in our Nation's history. This legislation would designate as a National Heritage Area an area that spans some 250 miles along Highway 89 and encompasses outstanding examples of historical, cultural, and natural resources that demonstrate the colonization of the western United States, and the experience and influence of the Mormon pioneers in furthering that colonization.

The landscape, architecture, artisan skills, and events along Highway 89

convey in a very real way the legacy of the Mormon pioneers' achievements. The community of Panquitch for example, has an annual Quilt Day celebration to commemorate the sacrifice and fortitude of its pioneers whose efforts saved the community from starvation in 1864. The celebration is in remembrance of the Quilt Walk, a walk in which a group of men from Panquitch used quilts to form a path that would bear their weight across the snow. This quilt walk enabled these men to cross over the mountains to procure food for their community, which was facing starvation as it experienced its first winter in Utah.

Another example of the tenacity of pioneers can be seen today at the Hole-in-the-Rock. Here, in 1880, a group of 250 people, 80 wagons, and 1,000 head of cattle upon the Colorado River Gorge. Finding no pathways down to the river, the pioneers decided to use a narrow crevice leading down to the bottom of the gorge. To make the crevice big enough to accommodate wagons, the pioneers spent 6 weeks enlarging the crevice by hand, using hammers, chisels, and blasting powder. They then attached large ropes to the wagons as they began their descent down the steep incline. It is because of such tenacity and innovation on the part of pioneers that the western United States was shaped the way it was and much of that has contributed to the way of life and landscape still found in the West today.

The National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area will serve as a special recognition of the people and places that have contributed greatly to our Nation's development. It will allow for the conservation of historical and cultural resources, the establishment of interpretive exhibits, will increase public awareness of the surviving skills and crafts of those living along Highway 89, and specifically allows for the preservation of historic buildings. In light of the benefits associated with preserving the rich heritage of the founding of many of the communities along Highway 89, my legislation has broad support from Sanpete, Sevier, Piute, Garfield, and Kane counties and is a locally based, locally supported undertaking.

Since the introduction of this legislation in the 108th Congress, I am pleased that the local counties, who have been unanimously supportive of this legislation, have come together to outline in a Memorandum of Understanding, with the local coordinating entity identified in the legislation, the cooperative relationship the coordinating entity enjoys with the elected officials of the local counties.

This legislation passed the Senate both in the 107th and 108th Congresses as part of packages agreed upon by the committee of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, both times the packages were not able to be considered by the other body prior to adjournment. I reintroduce this bill today with the hope that during this session of Congress we might achieve success in this body early enough to be considered by the House.

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a bill which is intended to bring to a close the Federal acquisition of an important piece of privately held land, located within the federally designated desert tortoise reserve in Washington County, UT.

As some of my colleagues are aware, this is not the first time legislation has been introduced in an attempt to resolve this issue. Most recently, on December 7, 2004, at the conclusion of the 108th Congress, the Senate passed by unanimous consent an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 620, which adopted as title XVI agreed upon provisions of S. 1209. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives adjourned sine die before it had time to act upon H.R. 620. The legislation I am introducing today is virtually the same as the language earlier adopted by the Senate, except for a technical clarification regarding management of the acquired lands.

I want to personally express my appreciation to Chairman Domenici and his staff for their leadership and assistance on this issue. I would also like to thank the ranking minority member, Mr. Bingaman, the Department of the Interior, and their respective staffs, for their assistance and support of this measure.

Earlier in July of 2000, I introduced S. 2873, which was referred to and reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In addition, similar legislation was twice approved by the House of Representatives, both in the 106th and 107th Congresses. For over a decade, the private property addressed by this bill has been under Federal control and the Federal Government has enjoyed the benefits of the private property without fulfilling its constitutional obligation to compensate the landowner. The government's failure to timely acquire the landowner's private property has forced the landowner into bankruptcy. It is my hope that the time has come to finally resolve this issue.

In March of 1991, the desert tortoise was listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Government and environmental researchers determined that the land immediately north of St. George, UT, was prime desert tortoise habitat. Consequently, in February 1996, nearly 5 years after the listing, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, issued Washington County a Section 10 permit under the Endangered Species Act which paved the way for the adoption of a habitat conservation plan, HCP, and an implementation agreement. Under the Plan and Agreement, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, committed to acquire all private lands in the designated habitat area for the formation of the Red Cliffs Reserve for the protection of the desert tortoise.

One of the private land owners within the reserve is Environmental Land Technology, Ltd., ELT, which began acquiring lands from the State of Utah in 1981 for residential and recreational development several years prior to the listing of the species. Moreover, in the years preceding the listing of the desert tortoise and the adoption of the habitat conservation plan, ELT completed appraisals, cost estimates, engineering studies, site plans, surveys, utility layouts, and right- of-way negotiations. ELT staked out golf courses, and obtained water rights for the development of this land. Prior to the adoption of the HCP, it was not clear which lands the Federal and local governments would set aside for the desert tortoise, although it was assumed that there were sufficient surrounding Federal lands to provide adequate habitat. However, when the HCP was adopted in 1996, the decision was made to include ELT's lands within the boundaries of the reserve primarily because of the high concentrations of tortoises. The tortoises on ELT land also appeared to be one of, if not the only population without an upper respiratory disease that afflicted all of the other populations. As a consequence of the inclusion of the ELT lands, ELT's development efforts were halted.

With assurances from the Federal Government that the acquisition of the ELT development lands was a high priority, the owner negotiated with, and entered into, an assembled land exchange agreement with the BLM in anticipation of intrastate land exchanges. The private land owner then began a costly process of identifying comparable Federal lands within the State that would be suitable for an exchange for his lands in Washington County. Over the last 7 years, BLM and the private land owners, including ELT, have completed several exchanges, and the Federal Government has acquired, through those exchanges or direct purchases, nearly all of the private property located within the reserve, except for approximately 1,516 acres of the ELT development land. However, with the unforeseen creation of the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument in September 1996, and the subsequent land exchanges between the State of Utah and the Federal Government to consolidate Federal lands within that monument, there are no longer sufficient comparable Federal lands within Utah to complete the originally contemplated intrastate exchanges for the remainder of the ELT land.

Faced with this problem, and in light of the high priority the Department of the Interior has placed on acquiring

these lands, BLM officials recommended that the ELT lands be acquired by direct purchase. During the FY 2000 budget process, BLM proposed that $30 million be set aside to begin acquiring the remaining lands in Washington County. Unfortunately, because this project involves endangered species habitat and the USFWS is responsible for administering activities under the Endangered Species Act, the Office of Management and Budget shifted the $30 million from the BLM budget request to the USFWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund budget request. Ultimately, however, none of those funds was made available for BLM acquisitions within the Federal section of the reserve. Instead, the funds in that account were made available on a matching basis for the use of individual States to acquire wildlife habitat. The result of this bureaucratic fumbling has resulted in extreme financial hardship for ELT.

The lands within the Red Cliffs Reserve are ELT's only asset. The establishment of the Washington County HCP has effectively taken this property and prevented ELT from developing or otherwise disposing of the property. ELT has been brought to the brink of financial ruin as it has exhausted its resources in an effort to hold the property while awaiting the compensation to which it is entitled. ELT has had to sell its remaining assets, and the private land owner has also had to sell his personal assets, including his home, to simply hold the property. This has become a financial crisis for the landowner. It is simply wrong for the Federal Government to expect the landowner to continue to bear the cost of the government's efforts to provide habitat for an endangered species. That is the responsibility of the Federal Government. Moreover, while the landowner is bearing these costs, he continues to pay taxes on the property. This situation is made more egregious by the failure of the Department of the Interior to request any acquisition funding for FY 2004 or FY 2005, even though this acquisition has been designated a high priority by the agency. Over the past several years, ELT has pursued all possible avenues to complete the acquisition of these lands. The private land owner has spent millions of dollars pursuing both intrastate and interstate land exchanges and has worked cooperatively with the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, all of these efforts have thus far been fruitless.

The bill that I am introducing today will finally bring this acquisition to a close. In my view, a legislative taking should be an action of last resort. But, if ever a case warranted legislative condemnation, this is it. This bill will transfer to the Federal Government all right, title, and interest in the ELT development property within the Red Cliffs Reserve, including an additional 34 acres of landlocked real property owned by ELT adjacent to the land within the reserve. Subject to existing law, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards and Practices for Appraisal Professionals, USPAP, a United States Court of competent jurisdiction shall determine the value for the land.

The bill includes language to allow, as part of the legislative taking, for the landowner to recover reasonable costs, interest, and damages, if any, as determined by the court. It is important to understand that, while Federal acquisitions should be completed on the basis of fair market value, when the Federal Government makes the commitment to acquire private land, the landowner should not have to be driven into financial ruin while waiting upon the Federal Government to discharge its obligation. While the Federal Government has never disputed its obligation to acquire the property, it has had the benefit of the private land for all these years without having to pay for it. The private landowner should not have to bear the costs of this Federal foot-dragging.

This legislation is consistent with the high priority the Department of the Interior has repeatedly placed on this land acquisition, and is a necessary final step towards an equitable resolution. The time for pursuing other options has long since expired and it is unfortunate that it requires legislative action. Without commenting on the Endangered Species Act itself, it would seem that if it is the government's objective to provide habitat for the benefit of an endangered species, then the government ought to bear the costs, rather than forcing them upon the landowner. It is also time to address this issue so that the Federal agencies may be single-minded in their efforts to recover the desert tortoise which remains the aim of the creation of the reserve. This legislation simply codifies the status quo by enabling the private land owner to obtain the compensation to which he is constitutionally entitled. It is time to right this wrong and get on with the efforts to recover the species and I encourage my colleagues to again support the immediate enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area Act.

The story behind and about the Mormon pioneers' 1,400-mile trek from Illinois to the Great Salt Lake Valley is one of the most compelling and captivating in our Nation's history. This legislation would designate as a National Heritage Area an area that spans some 250 miles along Highway 89 and encompasses outstanding examples of historical, cultural, and natural resources that demonstrate the colonization of the western United States, and the experience and influence of the Mormon pioneers in furthering that colonization.

The landscape, architecture, artisan skills, and events along Highway 89

convey in a very real way the legacy of the Mormon pioneers' achievements. The community of Panquitch for example, has an annual Quilt Day celebration to commemorate the sacrifice and fortitude of its pioneers whose efforts saved the community from starvation in 1864. The celebration is in remembrance of the Quilt Walk, a walk in which a group of men from Panquitch used quilts to form a path that would bear their weight across the snow. This quilt walk enabled these men to cross over the mountains to procure food for their community, which was facing starvation as it experienced its first winter in Utah.

Another example of the tenacity of pioneers can be seen today at the Hole-in-the-Rock. Here, in 1880, a group of 250 people, 80 wagons, and 1,000 head of cattle upon the Colorado River Gorge. Finding no pathways down to the river, the pioneers decided to use a narrow crevice leading down to the bottom of the gorge. To make the crevice big enough to accommodate wagons, the pioneers spent 6 weeks enlarging the crevice by hand, using hammers, chisels, and blasting powder. They then attached large ropes to the wagons as they began their descent down the steep incline. It is because of such tenacity and innovation on the part of pioneers that the western United States was shaped the way it was and much of that has contributed to the way of life and landscape still found in the West today.

The National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area will serve as a special recognition of the people and places that have contributed greatly to our Nation's development. It will allow for the conservation of historical and cultural resources, the establishment of interpretive exhibits, will increase public awareness of the surviving skills and crafts of those living along Highway 89, and specifically allows for the preservation of historic buildings. In light of the benefits associated with preserving the rich heritage of the founding of many of the communities along Highway 89, my legislation has broad support from Sanpete, Sevier, Piute, Garfield, and Kane counties and is a locally based, locally supported undertaking.

Since the introduction of this legislation in the 108th Congress, I am pleased that the local counties, who have been unanimously supportive of this legislation, have come together to outline in a Memorandum of Understanding, with the local coordinating entity identified in the legislation, the cooperative relationship the coordinating entity enjoys with the elected officials of the local counties.

This legislation passed the Senate both in the 107th and 108th Congresses as part of packages agreed upon by the committee of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, both times the packages were not able to be considered by the other body prior to adjournment. I reintroduce this bill today with the hope that during this session of Congress we might achieve success in this body early enough to be considered by the House.

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a bill which is intended to bring to a close the Federal acquisition of an important piece of privately held land, located within the federally designated desert tortoise reserve in Washington County, UT.

As some of my colleagues are aware, this is not the first time legislation has been introduced in an attempt to resolve this issue. Most recently, on December 7, 2004, at the conclusion of the 108th Congress, the Senate passed by unanimous consent an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 620, which adopted as title XVI agreed upon provisions of S. 1209. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives adjourned sine die before it had time to act upon H.R. 620. The legislation I am introducing today is virtually the same as the language earlier adopted by the Senate, except for a technical clarification regarding management of the acquired lands.

I want to personally express my appreciation to Chairman Domenici and his staff for their leadership and assistance on this issue. I would also like to thank the ranking minority member, Mr. Bingaman, the Department of the Interior, and their respective staffs, for their assistance and support of this measure.

Earlier in July of 2000, I introduced S. 2873, which was referred to and reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In addition, similar legislation was twice approved by the House of Representatives, both in the 106th and 107th Congresses. For over a decade, the private property addressed by this bill has been under Federal control and the Federal Government has enjoyed the benefits of the private property without fulfilling its constitutional obligation to compensate the landowner. The government's failure to timely acquire the landowner's private property has forced the landowner into bankruptcy. It is my hope that the time has come to finally resolve this issue.

In March of 1991, the desert tortoise was listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Government and environmental researchers determined that the land immediately north of St. George, UT, was prime desert tortoise habitat. Consequently, in February 1996, nearly 5 years after the listing, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, issued Washington County a Section 10 permit under the Endangered Species Act which paved the way for the adoption of a habitat conservation plan, HCP, and an implementation agreement. Under the Plan and Agreement, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, committed to acquire all private lands in the designated habitat area for the formation of the Red Cliffs Reserve for the protection of the desert tortoise.

One of the private land owners within the reserve is Environmental Land Technology, Ltd., ELT, which began acquiring lands from the State of Utah in 1981 for residential and recreational development several years prior to the listing of the species. Moreover, in the years preceding the listing of the desert tortoise and the adoption of the habitat conservation plan, ELT completed appraisals, cost estimates, engineering studies, site plans, surveys, utility layouts, and right- of-way negotiations. ELT staked out golf courses, and obtained water rights for the development of this land. Prior to the adoption of the HCP, it was not clear which lands the Federal and local governments would set aside for the desert tortoise, although it was assumed that there were sufficient surrounding Federal lands to provide adequate habitat. However, when the HCP was adopted in 1996, the decision was made to include ELT's lands within the boundaries of the reserve primarily because of the high concentrations of tortoises. The tortoises on ELT land also appeared to be one of, if not the only population without an upper respiratory disease that afflicted all of the other populations. As a consequence of the inclusion of the ELT lands, ELT's development efforts were halted.

With assurances from the Federal Government that the acquisition of the ELT development lands was a high priority, the owner negotiated with, and entered into, an assembled land exchange agreement with the BLM in anticipation of intrastate land exchanges. The private land owner then began a costly process of identifying comparable Federal lands within the State that would be suitable for an exchange for his lands in Washington County. Over the last 7 years, BLM and the private land owners, including ELT, have completed several exchanges, and the Federal Government has acquired, through those exchanges or direct purchases, nearly all of the private property located within the reserve, except for approximately 1,516 acres of the ELT development land. However, with the unforeseen creation of the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument in September 1996, and the subsequent land exchanges between the State of Utah and the Federal Government to consolidate Federal lands within that monument, there are no longer sufficient comparable Federal lands within Utah to complete the originally contemplated intrastate exchanges for the remainder of the ELT land.

Faced with this problem, and in light of the high priority the Department of the Interior has placed on acquiring

these lands, BLM officials recommended that the ELT lands be acquired by direct purchase. During the FY 2000 budget process, BLM proposed that $30 million be set aside to begin acquiring the remaining lands in Washington County. Unfortunately, because this project involves endangered species habitat and the USFWS is responsible for administering activities under the Endangered Species Act, the Office of Management and Budget shifted the $30 million from the BLM budget request to the USFWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund budget request. Ultimately, however, none of those funds was made available for BLM acquisitions within the Federal section of the reserve. Instead, the funds in that account were made available on a matching basis for the use of individual States to acquire wildlife habitat. The result of this bureaucratic fumbling has resulted in extreme financial hardship for ELT.

The lands within the Red Cliffs Reserve are ELT's only asset. The establishment of the Washington County HCP has effectively taken this property and prevented ELT from developing or otherwise disposing of the property. ELT has been brought to the brink of financial ruin as it has exhausted its resources in an effort to hold the property while awaiting the compensation to which it is entitled. ELT has had to sell its remaining assets, and the private land owner has also had to sell his personal assets, including his home, to simply hold the property. This has become a financial crisis for the landowner. It is simply wrong for the Federal Government to expect the landowner to continue to bear the cost of the government's efforts to provide habitat for an endangered species. That is the responsibility of the Federal Government. Moreover, while the landowner is bearing these costs, he continues to pay taxes on the property. This situation is made more egregious by the failure of the Department of the Interior to request any acquisition funding for FY 2004 or FY 2005, even though this acquisition has been designated a high priority by the agency. Over the past several years, ELT has pursued all possible avenues to complete the acquisition of these lands. The private land owner has spent millions of dollars pursuing both intrastate and interstate land exchanges and has worked cooperatively with the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, all of these efforts have thus far been fruitless.

The bill that I am introducing today will finally bring this acquisition to a close. In my view, a legislative taking should be an action of last resort. But, if ever a case warranted legislative condemnation, this is it. This bill will transfer to the Federal Government all right, title, and interest in the ELT development property within the Red Cliffs Reserve, including an additional 34 acres of landlocked real property owned by ELT adjacent to the land within the reserve. Subject to existing law, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards and Practices for Appraisal Professionals, USPAP, a United States Court of competent jurisdiction shall determine the value for the land.

The bill includes language to allow, as part of the legislative taking, for the landowner to recover reasonable costs, interest, and damages, if any, as determined by the court. It is important to understand that, while Federal acquisitions should be completed on the basis of fair market value, when the Federal Government makes the commitment to acquire private land, the landowner should not have to be driven into financial ruin while waiting upon the Federal Government to discharge its obligation. While the Federal Government has never disputed its obligation to acquire the property, it has had the benefit of the private land for all these years without having to pay for it. The private landowner should not have to bear the costs of this Federal foot-dragging.

This legislation is consistent with the high priority the Department of the Interior has repeatedly placed on this land acquisition, and is a necessary final step towards an equitable resolution. The time for pursuing other options has long since expired and it is unfortunate that it requires legislative action. Without commenting on the Endangered Species Act itself, it would seem that if it is the government's objective to provide habitat for the benefit of an endangered species, then the government ought to bear the costs, rather than forcing them upon the landowner. It is also time to address this issue so that the Federal agencies may be single-minded in their efforts to recover the desert tortoise which remains the aim of the creation of the reserve. This legislation simply codifies the status quo by enabling the private land owner to obtain the compensation to which he is constitutionally entitled. It is time to right this wrong and get on with the efforts to recover the species and I encourage my colleagues to again support the immediate enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. President, Pat Raymond prefers to be the person behind the person. She prefers to work behind the scenes, and as I can attest, late at nights, weekends, and holidays. For 30 years she has served the Senate faithfully, professionally, tirelessly, and as a stalwart advocate. But today I would like to put Pat front and center and thank her for her service to me and to the Senate.

For the past 2 years, Pat has worked as the clerk of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee that I chair. I have benefited from her institutional knowledge, her counsel, and her judgment. Because of consecutive reductions in the budget of the United States Department of Agriculture the last 2 years have been very challenging, but Pat has been up to the task. In 2003, even though the allocation to the subcommittee was nearly $1 billion below the prior years enacted level, we produced a bill that the Senate approved with only one dissenting vote. Pat has developed strong working relationships not only with the staff of Senator Kohl, the subcommittee ranking member, but also with the staffs of Representatives Bonilla and Kaptur, the House agriculture appropriations chairman and ranking member. These relationships have enabled the agriculture appropriations subcommittees of both chambers to work together and overcome the challenges posed by being required to do more with less.

After 30 years of service Pat will retire at the end of this Congress. I thank her for her dedication, for her hard work, and for a job well done. More than that, I wish her well, as she travels to Florida for a well deserved rest. But I know that ``rest'' won't last long--Pat is too young, too vigorous, and has too much to contribute not to get involved in something important right from the start.

Mr. President, in the next several weeks I will be visiting Europe to meet with government and business leaders in London, Paris, and Brussels. I believe the United States' relationship with the European Union and the states of Europe is of supreme importance. America's economic, security, political, and institutional links with Europe are stronger and deeper than with any other region of the world. Recently, the importance of this relationship was explained very well in an article written by the Honorable James Elles, who is a Member of the European Parliament.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Elles's article be printed in the Record.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, in this election time we are hearing a great deal of discussion about the economy. We are hearing all kinds of spin being placed on the economic numbers. I don't come to the floor to try to put any spin on the numbers, but I do come to try to list the numbers. As I read the various speeches on both sides of the aisle, many times they pick out one particular portion of the economy that can be used to make a point for or against where their political position is. I want to simply outline the numbers and let those who may be watching come to their own conclusions as to whether the economy is doing well.

First number: Over the past four quarters the U.S. economy has expanded by 4.8 percent. Let's put that in perspective. In that same period, Italy has seen its economy expand by 1.2 percent; Germany 2 percent; 2.8 percent in France; 3.6 percent in Britain; and 4.2 percent in Japan. Japan is emerging from a 15-year recession, and they are thrilled about their growth at 4.2 percent. In America, we are growing at 4.8 percent. Those are the numbers.

Comparison to our own history: The U.S. growth rate over the past year has been nearly a full percentage point above the 3.9 percent growth over a comparable period when President Clinton was seeking reelection. August's 5.4 unemployment rate, for those who want to focus primarily on jobs, is well below the average of the 1970s. The average unemployment in the 1970s was 6.2; the 1980s, the average unemployment in the 1980s was 7.3; and the 1990s, the average unemployment in the 1990s was 5.75. Our current unemployment is 5.4.

The nonfarm business sector productivity growth has averaged 4.6 percent per year from the beginning of 2002 through the second quarter of this year. Unprecedented in the post-World War II period, the annualized productivity increases since early 2002 have been nearly three times the annual average rate that prevailed from 1994 to 1996. Let me repeat that. If you go back to those 2 years from 1994 to 1996, again trying to take a comparable period, 2 years before a Presidential election, the average annual rate in that period was 1.6 percent. Right now our annualized rate is three times as high.

Consumer price inflation was 3.4 percent in 2000. Since then it has averaged 2.4 percent. Inflation is under control. Inflation expectations are very well contained.

So we are having growth higher than we have had. We are having productivity higher than we have had. We are having unemployment lower than we have had. And inflation and inflation expectations are well under control.

I could go on with additional statistics. Let me cite a few very recent numbers to bring people up to date. One of the things about economics that many of us forget is that the numbers take a while to be accumulated. You will have a number released and then, when the economists go back through the data, they come back and say, no, that number was wrong. We now know that the average was either higher or lower than we had indicated.

The second quarter GDP growth of this year was originally reported at 2.8 percent below the numbers I have been talking about, causing some people to say, see, the economy has slowed down. They have now been revised. The economists have gone back, reexamined the data, and have revised that 2.8 percent upward to 3.3 percent, which gives us the average for the four quarters that I cited earlier. The economy is doing very well. Business investment increased by 12.5 percent and has now increased for five consecutive quarters. Export growth was strong and the revised second quarter trade deficit was smaller than previously reported.

Residential investment, primarily home building, is now estimated to have grown at a stellar 16.5 percent annualized rate. This is the second strongest quarterly growth in home building in 8 years. More Americans own their home now than at any time in American history. Household wealth--which represents for many people the equity in their homes--is at a record high. It hit a record high--the highest in American history--in the second quarter of 2004.

For those who talk about squeezes and those who talk about Americans who cannot save anything, Americans who cannot acquire any wealth, I suggest that you look at the facts. Again, according to the Federal Reserve data, U.S. household wealth hit a record high in the second quarter of 2004. It will be interesting to see where it goes in the third quarter.

New home sales dropped off for a while. People said maybe the recovery was slowing down. New home sales regained their vigor in August, with a 9.4-percent annualized rate of increase. Construction activity remains on a solid footing. Housing starts were up by a robust 9 percent in August over the year before. As I said, the home ownership rate in the United States is now 69 percent, the highest in American history.

It is interesting that we focus on the percentage, because the growth of the population would allow people to say, yes, it is the highest in history numerically, but a smaller percentage of Americans are living in their own homes. That is not true. It is not only the highest numerically; it is the highest percentage of Americans owning their own home and living in their own home.

These are the facts. We will let the politicians in this election spin whatever they want to spin, but I hope everybody will ultimately come back to the facts.

If I may put my interpretation on the facts which I believe are very defensible, the recovery out of the recent recession has not only taken hold, not only gained traction, it is strong, it is growing, and the next President of the United States--whomever he may be--will inherit a very strong and robust economy. He will take credit for it because it will have happened on his watch, but the groundwork for this economy, for the next economy, has been laid already. We are seeing the results now.

Economists are looking back and saying 2002 was a better year than we thought; 2003 was a stronger year in the last half; and in 2004, the economy is growing at a rate at which every other industrialized country in the world would be very grateful. America is doing economically very well. Those are the facts.

I yield the floor.