Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time we have to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from New York with great interest, and the Senator from West Virginia. If I thought for one moment that the administration's budget would, in fact, kill Amtrak or eliminate passenger rail service in the Northeast corridor or other corridors around the country, where it is prospering, I would be the first to stand up and oppose the administration's position. I agree absolutely that rail passenger service in highly congested areas such as the Northeast corridor from Washington to Boston is not only important, it is essential. And I agree absolutely with the statement that says we could not absorb on our highways and our airplanes the number of passengers that would be forced there if Amtrak were to disappear. The Senator from New York spoke about what happened after 9/11, and she said Amtrak was the only way out of Manhattan. As the bridges were closed, you could not drive out. The airports were closed. You could not fly out. You could not walk out. The only way New York City was connected--Manhattan Island, at least--with the rest of the country was by train. And it would be an absolute tragedy, it would be absolutely insane to shut that down. But as I understand the administration's position, they have no plans to shut that down. Indeed, they are willing to subsidize, as they have subsidized in the past because of all of the reasons that have been cited on the Senate floor, that kind of rail passenger traffic. But let me take you to another part of the Amtrak system that does not enjoy the same kind of patronage as the Acela train that goes high speed from Washington to New York City, and which I have taken with great satisfaction. Let me take you to my home State of Utah. We have Amtrak service in Utah. On one occasion, a family friend notified my wife and me that she was coming to Salt Lake City on Amtrak and would we meet her train. And we said: ``Why, of course. We will be happy to meet her train.'' We were a little less happy when we discovered that the train was arriving at 2:30 in the morning, and that this was its only stop, this was the only time. There was not an alternative time because the timing of the trains coming through, 2:30 in the morning was the only time this train came through Utah. We went down to the depot or the terminal, and I was a little bit struck by how shabby it had become through misuse over the years. But we were there. She came. We met her. I counted the number of people who got off the train with her, and it was fewer than you could count on the fingers of your two hands. There are fewer than 100 people a week that come into that station in Salt Lake. After 9/11, there would have been no disruption whatsoever of people traveling in and out of Salt Lake if Amtrak were not there. That terminal we went to that night was somewhat old and dilapidated and a bit shabby, but is now refurbished, lovely, big, and disconnected from Amtrak. The current Amtrak terminal is a Quonset hut because the real estate on which the old terminal sat was too valuable and it is part of a shopping center and real estate development activity. And when that train comes in to disgorge its two or three passengers per night--and it is not every night; the schedule only comes through three times a week--the passengers who get off get off in a Quonset hut. There is no taxi service there. It is in a part of town that is not easy to walk to and from. It has fallen into disuse not because the administration has not been subsidizing it enough, not because Amtrak has not had a big enough capital budget, but because rail passenger service across very large numbers of miles between cities that do not naturally connect to each other simply does not make sense. Amtrak in the Northeast corridor makes all the sense in the world, and we must do everything we can to make sure we preserve it. In the Cascades there is Amtrak service that makes sense. In California there is Amtrak service that makes sense. There are a number of places where Amtrak makes sense, and we must preserve it in those places. The administration, in this budget, as I understand it, has provided for $360 million that would go to the Surface Transportation Board that would be available to reimburse Amtrak in those areas where it needs it to keep the kind of service that has been described here on the Senate floor. Now, I have given this speech before in committee--this is the first time I have done it on the floor--and every time I do, I get a flurry of letters. They are all from the same people. And they all object. Their objections all come down to nostalgia for the rail service that we all knew when we were young--or at least that I knew when I was young. I am sure there are many Members of the Senate here who have no memory of it at all. I have great memories of rail travel: full trains, dining rooms with crisp, white linen on them, and silver tea sets and china and long trips across the country. If you were taking a train trip across the country from Salt Lake to New York, you better allocate several days for that. You better take along a pretty good library of books to read. But you'll love the scenery. Then, you were willing to take the time. You were willing to relax. It was a wonderful way to travel. Americans don't like to travel that way anymore. It makes no sense to kid ourselves that a national railway system similar to the Europeans' makes sense in the United States. Look at the difference in distances. The Northeast corridor from Washington to Boston would cover three or four national frontiers in Europe. You would visit three or four countries traveling that far in Europe. And it makes tremendous sense with the high density of population over there for them to have a national railway system. But when you are dealing with a nation the size of Belgium, you are dealing with something rather different from a nation the size of the United States. Now, I have a particular personal history with this. I was working in the Department of Transportation in the Nixon administration as the head of congressional relations. The distinguished Presiding Officer was the voice on the other end of the phone when I called the White House, as he was working for Bryce Harlow in charge of congressional relations. I was not always able to get hold of Bryce Harlow, but I could always get hold of Lamar Alexander. The decision to shut down passenger travel as we had known it for close to 100 years in the United States was made in the Nixon administration, and it was my responsibility to sell the Congress on the concept of Amtrak. Because railroads were required by law to maintain passenger traffic on their whole system, and the railroads were hemorrhaging red ink over this issue, our Department came up with the idea of creating a single National Railroad Passenger Corporation. That is the formal name of Amtrak. Amtrak was the name that was created by the image makers after the Congress acted. It was my responsibility, along with my team, to come to the Congress and convince them that it made sense to shrink rail passenger service to this skeletal fashion. The outcry was enormous: You can't do that. Look at the towns that will no longer be served if you shrink it down to this skeletal system. I remember one Governor traveled all the way to Washington to protest to us. And then we pointed out to that particular Governor that the number of people who got on the trains in his State could be picked up with chauffeur-driven limousines and driven to the nearest town where they wanted to go in the name of rail service, and it would cost a fraction of the amount that was being spent on rail service. When the Governor looked at the reality of what was really happening and got away from the nostalgia of passenger rail service, he himself, having not taken a train in many years, looked at us and said: You know, this really doesn't make any sense. One by one, the Governors withdrew their objection to the creation of what is now Amtrak. We need to have the same kind of understanding here that brought us to the creation of Amtrak in the first place. There are parts of the country where Amtrak is essential and must be maintained. I will be the first Senator to stand here and defend it, and I will be a Senator from Utah who votes for appropriations for Amtrak for New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington State, California, and other places where it makes some sense. I agree that the Federal Government should subsidize that if it cannot make it on its own because it makes a contribution that is essential. But I cannot, under any condition, defend the expenditures of maintaining a national network in the name of saying we are connected all over the country with a set of rails and saying isn't that wonderful that you can get on the train and go all the way across the country when it is very clear that nobody wants to in any kind of quantity that makes any kind of sense. I will be happy to contribute that portion of Amtrak's budget that goes to maintain rail service in Utah to the State of New Jersey, where they need it, and, if necessary, in Utah, we can come up with one bus per week, which has enough capacity to handle all of the Amtrak passengers who come through our State. So for that reason, I am opposed to this amendment, because, in my view, it is attempting to maintain something that has passed from our history, actually to the detriment of that which is needed in our future. Let's get over the nostalgia of the old national railway system, and let's focus on the need to have an intelligent passenger railway system in the corridors where it contributes enormously to cutting down on congestion, pollution, and delay. For that reason, I oppose this amendment, and I urge our fellow Senators to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, let me repeat what I said earlier. As I have listened to my friends talk about this amendment, I know of no one on this side who wants to shut down Amtrak. I know of no one in the administration who wants to destroy Amtrak. I know of no one who thinks that it would make sense to stop running trains in those corridors where people depend upon them for their daily activities. I hear all of the doomsday talk. I dismiss it because I don't know of anybody who is planning to do the terrible things they are accused of. I do want to respond to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, on one comment he made about the necessity for keeping a national rail system. He said, if we don't keep running trains in all of these States that don't have big population centers, that depend upon Amtrak the way New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania do, we will lose their political support. Apparently, he didn't hear what I had to say, so I will repeat it. I am a Senator from Utah who supports Amtrak, who believes it is essential for the Nation to have Amtrak in the Northeast corridor and other heavily populated areas. I would be glad to donate to Amtrak the cost of running a train through Utah or running several trains through Utah. I am not going to disappoint many of my constituents because they don't ride the trains. I am not so parochial as to say that the only reason I would support Amtrak is because there is a train in my State. When I look at the number of people who are on the train, I look at the number of people who use the train, I realize that a train in my State is a waste of money. A train in my State makes no sense. I have watched the service shrink, as I said before, with the number of people who ride it. I have watched the terminal go from a large terminal that had great nostalgia and history down to a smaller one, to a corner of that one, until today it is quite literally a Quonset hut. Because there are so few people going through it, there is so little use of it that you want to conserve as much money as you can in the capital structure that supports it. So let us not say that the reason we have to maintain the fiction of a national railway system is for political support that can support the areas where the railway system is really needed. Let's give those of us who come from other States enough credit of being smart enough to realize that shutting down Amtrak in the Northeast corridor would be a stupid thing to do, but keeping Amtrak running across areas of the country bigger than the areas across Europe all by themselves, where nobody uses the service, is also a stupid thing to do. This is not an all-or-nothing discussion. This is not a debate between killing Amtrak and putting 15 million people on the Northeast corridor on the highways or keeping rail service available all across the Nation. This is a question of saying after 30 years of watching the subsidies fail to produce a system that makes sense, it is time to redraw the nature of the system. And this is the administration's way of getting our attention. If, in fact, we find out during the appropriations process that the administration wants to kill Amtrak, that the administration really wants to destroy service in the Northeast corridor, I will be the first to come to the floor and stand with my friends from New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland and say this is a stupid thing to do. And I will vote for appropriations, I will vote for subsidies for Amtrak in those areas, as I always have. But do not assume the reason I always have is because there is a train running through my State. Indeed, I have always voted in that fashion saying that you ought to get rid of the train that is running through my State so that you have more money available to solve the problems in the Northeast corridor. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Budget Act indicates that during every budget debate there should be a period of time discussing the general economy. As the past chair and current vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee, I feel I am in a position to do that. I want to share with my colleagues a statement of where the economy is now, and then make a few comments about where it may be going and talk about the future. Naturally, you can't have a conversation about the economy without charts. That seems to be one of the essentials for any economic discussion. So I brought a fair number of charts to outline the economy to the Members of the Senate. This first chart is an historic chart that goes back to the years of the early 1970s. All of the bars above the lines are quarters of economic growth. They are measured in GDP growth, the percentage of growth in the gross domestic product. The bars below the lines are quarters of gross domestic production shrinkage where the economy contracted. If we go back to this period in the early 1980s, we see what the economists call the double dip, the dreaded period where the economy goes into recession, comes out of it, and then slips back into recession. Those who are old enough to remember the early 1980s remember how difficult a time that really was. I have a very clear memory of one of my associates in that period of time who said to me: Bob, be very, very grateful you have a job. Unemployment was high, business activity was off, the economy was recovering, or attempting to recover from the great inflation. We talk about the 1930s as the days of the Great Depression. The late 1970s were the days of the great inflation. All kinds of things were happening. I remember running a business in this period and going to the bank to borrow money and feeling very fortunate I was able to borrow money at a 21-percent interest rate to support my business. The folks on the late-night comic shows were talking about the height of the interest rates. I remember one who said Jimmy Carter is the only President in history whose approval rating is below the prime rate. We came out of that period with the help of a combination of activity by the Federal Reserve with Paul Volcker, actions by the Congress, and tax cuts under President Ronald Reagan. We survived through this, and we had a period of tremendous economic growth, the strong recovery out of the recession, and then, after that recovery had taken hold and gained traction, a period of good economic growth. Then we went into the recession that occurred during the Presidency of the first President Bush--much milder than the dreaded double dip of the 1980s but, nonetheless, a period of contraction. The recovery was not as strong as this one following the double dip because it did not have that much to rebound from. But we had that recovery and then a period of strong economic growth until we come to the recession from which we have just emerged. Interestingly, this, by technical definition, was not a recession because the technical definition of a recession is at least two successive quarters of shrinkage in the gross domestic production. We never had two successive quarters. What we had were three quarters, not in succession; by historic standards, we had a very mild contraction in the size of the economy. This was, perhaps, the shortest and shallowest recession that we have had in our history. We did not have that strong a recovery. When I asked Alan Greenspan why the recovery was not taking hold, he said because the recession was so short and shallow. If you want a really strong recovery like the one we had after the double dip, you have to be coming out of a recession as bad as the one at that time. So we can be grateful. The recent recovery finally got traction in the second half of 2003, and we see now we are in a period of very strong economic growth, which by historic standards is as good as the economic growth we had in the other two areas. The light blue at the end is what the economists are forecasting for the balance of 2005. But interestingly enough, already the newspapers are saying those forecasts may be too conservative. As they go back and look at the business activity in the first quarter of 2005, they are saying 2005 may very well be a better year than is being forecast. Those are the figures and the statistics for the economy as a whole. Now we will look at the question of jobs. We heard a lot of rhetoric prior to the election about how bad the job situation was. The background shaded areas in the figure are the areas of recession. You see the unemployment numbers superimposed upon the historic periods of recession. From the period of the double dip, we saw unemployment get into double digits--10.8 percent was the peak. Then it came back down and in this area which is about 7 percent you would feel, OK, the employment picture has gotten good again. We are down from 10.8 down into the 7-percent range. Then, as the economy became even stronger, the unemployment rate fell down. When the recession hit in the early 1990s, unemployment came back up to 7.8 percent, a very large increase from where it had been, but in historic terms not that bad. When the recovery took hold, this time unemployment came all the way down to about 4 percent. Then the recession hit and unemployment spiked at 6.3 percent. I remember when I took economics in college they told me 6-percent unemployment was full employment--that the economy could not employ more people than that without heating up with inflation. We found out that was not true here. True to the pattern, the peak was reached at 6.3. It is now falling back. Unemployment is at 5.4 percent, well below the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The economy in these categories is behaving as it has throughout our past history. Another look at jobs. Here are the jobs per month created since the recovery took hold. We can see it was in the second half of 2003 that the recovery took hold. We started creating new jobs in May of 2003, and while it was anemic for a while, then it really took off in the first part of 2004 and on through. We have had 21 months of increased employment every single month, and we have created over 3 million jobs in that period of time. The economy continues to show signs of creating jobs because jobless claims, which are the forecast of new jobs, have been falling. Once again, this is the period of the recent recession and jobless claims were going up and peaked in that period. They flattened out. When the recovery took hold in the middle of 2003, they started down in 2003 and they continue to trend downward, indicating that the increase in jobs is something we can look forward to for a fairly good period of time ahead. Business activity, dividing between service and manufacturing activity: We can see that for the manufacturing sector the recession was very difficult. The blue line shows expansion or contraction. Manufacturing started down in early 2000, went below the line and stayed there until 2002, briefly came back up, and then dipped below again in the first part of 2003. Once again, that is when the recovery took hold and manufacturing has been in positive territory ever since. Services have done better than manufacturing all the way and both of them remain in the position of expansion. During that period, however, inflation has remained well under control. Here are the inflation numbers. The Consumer Price Index, in the dark blue, has come down and remained fairly low, but the personal consumption expenditures price index, which is the inflation measure that the Federal Reserve uses to determine what is going on with inflation, is even lower and is staying more stable. So the recovery has taken hold in all sectors, manufacturing as well as services. Jobs are coming back, and the forecasters say we will have economic growth at or above the level we enjoyed during the 1990s, at least through 2005. What about the deficits? We keep hearing a lot of conversation about deficits around here and people saying: Well, maybe the economy is doing that well, but it is all because of runaway deficits. Here again is the historic pattern of deficits. You can see the deficits spiked as a percentage of GDP during the 1980 double dip. It got to 6 percent GDP. In the recession of the early 1990s, it did not get that high. It was a little bit under 5 percent. This last one has been under 4 percent. The deficit peaked at a lower level than the peaks of the two preceding recessions. The dotted line that is shown here is CBO's projection of where the deficit is going as a percentage of GDP. Now, you can say: How can it be falling as a percentage of GDP when it is going up in total dollars? Well, if it is rising less rapidly than GDP is growing, it is falling as a percentage of GDP. Let's look at the numbers behind the deficit to see what is happening with respect to revenues. Here are the tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, again in historic context. They peaked in 1969-1970. And then when the recession hit, they fell. Here is the double dip, 1980-1982. Just before that recession, they peaked. The recession hit, and revenues fell dramatically. The last one, 1990-1991, they did not come back up that much. But they fell as soon as the recession came along. Then we had the revenues to a historic high as a percentage of GDP, up over 21 percent, coming at the time of the dot-com bubble. One of the things that was responsible for this tremendous rise was the capital gains revenues. We in the Congress cut the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent and produced 5 times--5 times-- the capital gains realizations that CBO had projected. There were so many people with so much inflated value in their stock who took advantage of that capital gains tax cut, who cashed it all in and paid that capital gains tax, and that pushed the revenue to unprecedented highs as a percentage of GDP. The combination of the collapse of the dot-com bubble, and the collapse of the stock market that came along as a result, and the recession drove receipts down. And, yes, the tax cuts played a role there. There are those who were saying the tax cuts were solely responsible for this. The data do not support that. But they came back down. What is happening is they are coming back up, as they always have. After every recession, revenues have come back as a percentage of GDP. And here are the specifics of how they have come up in fiscal 2005, in the years we have been operating in this fiscal year. The corporate income tax is up 50 percent from where it was a year ago. Payroll taxes are up 6 percent of where they were a year ago. Personal income taxes are up 10 percent of where they were a year ago. That is a clear indication, once again, that the recovery has taken hold and it is producing the standard historic response to a recovery after a recession. Revenues increase as the recovery takes hold. The overall number is 9 percent. All total revenues are 9 percent higher than they were in the previous year's corresponding months. Total spending in that period is up 7 percent. That includes the war. That includes the supplementals. That includes all of the things we have done here. Total spending is up 7 percent higher than it was the previous year. But total revenue is up 9 percent higher than it was the previous year. So the recovery is taking hold and the deficit as a percentage of GDP is, in fact, staying within historic norms. Now, I do not want to leave the impression from all of this that the future, therefore, is completely rosy and we do not need to worry about the deficit or that we do not need to worry about the future of the economy because lying there in our future is a major challenge. This has been talked about many times on the floor by Senators from both sides of the aisle. But I want to dramatize it with this set of charts. I go back to fiscal 1966. Why did I pick fiscal 1966? That was the first year we began to see spending for Medicare. Medicare was passed prior to that time, but they had to gear up for it. They had to do the kinds of preparations they are doing now with respect to the drug benefit, so that the first time you began to see spending for Medicare was 1966. All right. These colors on the chart demonstrate how the budget was divided. The big portion of the budget, the dark blue, is defense spending. Defense spending in 1966 was 44 percent of the Federal budget. The light blue is non-defense discretionary spending. That was everything else. That was highways. That was education. That was courthouses. That was the Customs Office. That was everything we did in Government, which was 23 percent. Interest costs on the national debt were 7 percent. And the red, the mandatory spending, was 26 percent, the mandatory spending primarily being Social Security. All right. That is what it was when the Medicare spending started. Now, look what has happened today. This is 2004. The mandatory spending has grown to 54 percent. It is like a Pac-Man beginning to close in on everything else. The defense discretionary, even while we are at war, has shrunk to 20 percent of the budget. The nondefense discretionary is at 19 percent. It shrunk a little from where it was before, but close to the same. The interest costs are steady at 7 percent of the budget. But we have seen mandatory spending go from about 25 percent in 1966 to 54 percent in 2004. Now let's go out in a projection. This is not a projection into the far distant future. This is only 10 years. We can be a little more confident of a 10-year projection than we can a 20-or 30-year projection. See how the Pac-Man portion of this circle is growing. Mandatory spending is now up to 62 percent. Defense discretionary has shrunk to 14 percent. Nondefense discretionary has shrunk to 15 percent, and interest costs have grown to 8 percent. If you project this out, as this begins to take over all of the chart, the one thing that will challenge it is not defense spending and not discretionary spending, it is interest costs. As this begins to grow to the point where we cannot cover it, then we borrow more and more, and you will see the yellow begin to push the red back. You would see the yellow begin to take over where the red took over first. I make this point because, as we are dealing with this budget, we should remember the impact of mandatory spending. I use this figure to illustrate this point to my constituents who say to us: The deficit must be brought under control. You in Congress must stop spending. You have to show some spending discipline, or the deficit will overwhelm us. Let me give you two numbers. The President's budget proposal is for $2.7 trillion. The amount of discretionary spending that we are debating in this budget is $843 billion, and that $843 billion includes defense. That is why it says defense discretionary. If you take defense off the table on the grounds that we are at war and say, all right, you are going to have to balance the budget and bring the deficit under control by controlling spending, the only portion of spending over which we have any authority becomes 19 percent of the total budget. The other 81 percent will go on regardless of what we do. That is why we have to have the courage, looking ahead at this that is coming, to say somehow we have to roll back the mandatory spending. You cannot balance a budget of $2.7 trillion by shaving down a percentage of discretionary spending. If we were to have an across-the- board cut of 10 percent of all discretionary spending, we would have a cry of outrage on this floor that would be heard all over the country. A 10-percent across-the-board cut? A 10-percent across-the-board cut for IDEA? A 10-percent across-the-board cut for food stamps? A 10- percent across-the-board cut for everything we do in Government? Absolutely not. But if we were to enact that 10-percent across-the- board cut, ignoring the mandatory spending, that would yield only about $80 billion out of a budget of $2.7 trillion. To use a phrase that all of the politicians in the room can understand, that is within the margin of error. And $80 billion out of a budget of $2.7 trillion makes little or no impact. That is why in this budget debate we should keep in mind two things: First, as I hope I have illustrated, right now the economy is strong. It is robust. The recovery has taken hold. Jobs are being created. The deficit is coming down as a percentage of GDP. Things are moving in the right direction virtually across the board. However, if we do not now exhibit the courage to start taking steps to hold down mandatory spending, all of the present work that we have done to make the economy solid, sound, and strong will be for naught. It will be overwhelmed by a sea of red ink, coming not from the fact that Congress is being profligate in the appropriations that we make and spending decisions we make, but coming from the fact that we did not have the courage to deal with the mandatory programs. Now I have talked about Medicare, and that is the one that seems to have the greatest pressure. But we are also talking about Social Security, a mandatory program. We are talking about Medicaid, a mandatory program. We are talking about farm subsidies, a mandatory program. We are talking about the kinds of things that politicians have a very tough time addressing. This budget begins to address the mandatory programs very slightly, very gently, and in very small amounts. But they have already set off alarms of complaint around the Capitol that ``you are trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.'' That is a great slogan, and nobody wants to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, but we have to recognize that if the economy goes into the tank because of runaway spending, driven by mandatory, it will be the poor who will pay the heaviest price. I remember during the 1990s, when we were enjoying as much expansion as we were in the gross domestic product, one of my colleagues asked Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve: who benefited most from this boom? He was expecting Greenspan to say it was the rich because look how rich they have become. He was a little surprised when Chairman Greenspan said--and I agree with what he said: Without question, this good economy has primarily benefited the poor. My colleague said: How can you say that because the poor have not gotten as big an amount of money as have the rich? The chairman said: The poor have seen their life circumstances change far more dramatically than the rich have. They can get jobs where they could not before. They are beginning to buy homes in ways they could not before. They are beginning to save money in ways they could not before. There is no question but what, in terms of the impact on people's lives, this strong economy has benefited the poor more than anybody else. That is why we should look at these numbers that I have shared with the Senate today and realize that our primary stewardship must be to keep the economy as strong as we possibly can, that there is nothing we can do that would benefit the poor more than to see to it that this recovery remains robust and that the future moves away from this chart back to the kinds of proportions that we have today on this chart, where mandatory spending is roughly half instead of two-thirds of the total obligations of the Federal Government. I salute the chairman of the Budget Committee for his resolution and determination to see that we do that, and I hope the Members of the Senate will support the budget as it has been reported from the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. 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.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. 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.

Mr. BENNETT. 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.

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. 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.

Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. 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.