Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, as the Senator points out, we have become dependent, as Tennessee Williams said, on ``the kindness of strangers.'' On the one hand, we say we are the world's superpower. In many respects, that is quite true. However, economically, the foundations are weakening. They are not as solid and as strong as they once were. In the last years of the Clinton administration we were running surpluses and paying down the debt. The Bush administration came in and made these very excessive tax cuts at a time when we moved into a war footing. We have never done that before in this country. When we have gone into a war footing we have always concerned ourselves with how to meet the budgetary demands of the war. That did not happen here. All of a sudden we have switched from running surpluses to running these large deficits, year after year after year. The projections are that they will go out into the future as far as the eye can see. The Bush people say: We will lower the deficit a little bit. As long as we are running the deficit, we are still building up the debt. We are adding to the debt every step of the way. As we noted previously in our discussion, more and more of that debt is being held overseas. To the extent that happens, we are subject to the kind of leverage that others have. The United States has gone from being the world's largest creditor nation; now we are the world's largest debtor nation.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, furthermore, we have an opportunity to strengthen the economy in so many ways, including addressing the Social Security system which can be done with a number of relatively sensible steps. The Bush administration, of course, has been pressing this privatization. For the moment, they have been beaten back on that and people are turning their attention elsewhere, but it is very clear they have not given up. The President, at the end of June, said: If we can't get it done this year I'm going to try next year. And if we can't get it done next year, I'm going to try the year after that. The majority leader in the House of Representatives says: If I'm around in a leadership role come January [this coming January], we're going to get serious about it [privatizing of Social Security]. And the chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security said that privatization would be a top priority in the Congress in 2007. The American people have to understand this is still very much on the agenda of this administration and its supporters. Now they want to abolish the estate tax. Why not keep the estate tax and devote the revenues from the estate tax to strengthening the Social Security system? Then there would be a better retirement for everybody.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. In fact, the administration states the problem in such a way I think to sort of panic people, and then use that panic to push them toward the privatization of the Social Security system. For example, the administration says the Social Security system is bankrupt. The Social Security system is not bankrupt. The Social Security system, at the moment, is taking in more money than it pays out in the trust fund. Of course, the administration then borrows that money to cover its deficits. That is a separate issue. But there is more flowing into the system than is flowing out. That will last until about 2020. After that, they will start paying out more than flows into the fund, so they will start drawing down the fund. And they can continue to pay out all the benefits until 2046--in other words, 40 years from now, under the projections; of course, the projections are all problematic because it depends a lot on how the economy functions--but under their best projections, before they draw the fund down. At that point, they will still be able to pay 75 to 80 percent of the benefits from what is coming in to the Social Security trust fund. So the worst scenario is a 20- to 25-percent shortfall 40 years from now. Now, there are many things you can do now, next year, the year after, with an administration that really wants to support the Social Security system, to take care of that problem. The magnitude of that problem is not out of bounds in terms of being able to address it. But it has been dramatized as though it is an immediate crisis I think to sort of help scare and panic the American people and then have them be more open to these privatization proposals, which, as the able Senator from Rhode Island points out, would be to shift people from a guaranteed benefit--where they are told, as they are with Social Security: You are going to get so much a month and that is guaranteed to you--to a defined contribution plan, where you do not know what you are going to get. The people who worked at Enron and WorldCom thought they had wonderful retirements. They had these 401(k)s and everything--they thought they had company plans--they thought they had wonderful retirements, and they were going to be living quite well in their retirement years, and it all collapsed. But they still have----

Mr. SARBANES. Their Social Security, with its guaranteed benefit every month. So at least they have that basic form. People need to understand how important Social Security is to more than half of Americans who get more than 50 percent of their retirement income from Social Security. And 20 percent of retired Americans get more than 90 percent of their retirement income from Social Security. So Social Security is really essential to providing that base. In fact, it has helped to lift the seniors out of poverty. It used to be that the age group most in poverty was the elderly. Because of Social Security, essentially--and other things--but because of the improvements we have made to it now, that is the age group least in poverty. So we have made a substantial change. But Social Security is essential to achieving that. And I do not know why the administration put it out there. The country rejected it, clearly. And it was reflected by Members of Congress from both parties who said: No, no. And now they continue to talk about coming back to this issue and privatizing. They have not given up on privatizing the Social Security system.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield further, I think this does much to help explain the anxiety that Americans are feeling about the workings of their economy. Now, as the Senator so ably showed earlier, working people are being pressed from two directions. Their wages are not going up to keep pace with inflation, and key costs are increasing. That is compounded by the fact that the retired people are in a state of anxiety because they are constantly being told: Social Security will not be there for you-- although I think that is a false cry. Furthermore, as the increase in educational costs indicates, younger people--not yet in the workforce but moving in that direction--see the opportunities for education and training not opening up but closing down. Senator Stabenow pointed out earlier, we have the most significant cuts in Federal aid to education that we have experienced since the Federal Government began to try to provide assistance in that area. So through every age group, as they look at the situation, they find themselves being constrained, to deny them the opportunity--the young people--to get an education. Working people are being squeezed badly. And our retired citizens are kept in a constant state of agitation about the safety and the security of their retirement income. I think that explains why you are getting all these articles now in the major periodicals and in the major newspapers about this sort of anxiety that is running through the society about the workings of our economy. And when they look at it, it is very clear what is happening: the benefits are all being--as that chart indicates--focused right up at the top of the income and wealth scale. And everyone else is left in a state where they are really quite concerned about their future.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4956

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by the able chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. While the need for improved security at our Nation's ports is clearly evident, we must not forget the other areas of our Nation's multimodal transportation network. The amendment Chairman Shelby has offered would provide grants to our Nation's public transportation systems to help protect the millions of riders who use subway trains, commuter rail, and buses every single day. This amendment is based on legislation that passed the Senate unanimously in the 108th Congress and legislation that has been reported out again by the Banking Committee in the 109th Congress. We must not wait any longer to pass this needed legislation. If there is any question as to whether transit is at risk, one need only look at recent events. Less than 2 months ago, 7 coordinated bomb blasts devastated commuter trains in Mumbai, India, leaving over 200 dead and 700 injured. Last year, the London subway system was the target of a tragic attack that left 50 people dead, and in 2004, almost 200 people were killed when bombs exploded on commuter trains in Madrid. Here, this past May, the Department of Homeland Security issued a specific warning to transit systems to remain alert against possible terrorist attacks. The warning said that four people had been arrested in separate incidents involving videotaping of European subway stations and trains or similar activity, which the Department noted provides ``indications of continued terrorist interest in mass transit systems as targets.'' The threat is clear. In response, both the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have worked with transit systems to identify steps that can be taken to help prevent and mitigate attacks. In fact, the greatest challenge to securing our Nation's transit systems is not a lack of knowledge of what to do, but rather, a lack of resources with which to do it. In the words of the Government Accountability Office, ``Obtaining sufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.'' In an editorial published shortly after the London subway bombings, the Baltimore Sun stated that, ``Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has spent $18 billion on aviation security. Transit systems, which carry 16 times more passengers daily, have received about $250 million. That is a ridiculous imbalance.'' I commend Chairman Shelby and Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Allard of Colorado. We have all worked together on the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act. As I mentioned, this legislation has now twice come out of the Banking Committee. It authorizes, as the chairman mentioned, $3.5 billion over 3 years in security grants for our Nation's public transportation systems. The money will be available for projects designed to resist and deter terrorist attacks, including surveillance technologies, tunnel protection, chemical, biological, radiological and explosive detection systems, perimeter protection, employee training, and other security improvements. Let me give one example of a critical need right here with respect to Washington's Metro. Their greatest need is a backup operations control center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration in its initial security assessment and then identified again by the Department of Homeland Security in a subsequent security assessment. This amendment would authorize the funding to make this and other urgently needed security upgrades to transit systems around the country. We know transit systems are potential targets for terrorist attacks. We know the vital role these systems play in our Nation's economic and security infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which is designed to address the critical security needs of America's transit systems. I thank Chairman Collins and Senator Lieberman for their acceptance of this amendment, and Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. This is a major step forward. Mr. President, I would like to add as cosponsors on our side--I didn't pick up all the names Chairman Shelby read, but I have Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Menendez of New Jersey, Senator Clinton of New York, Senator Lieberman, Senator Boxer, and Senator Schumer.

Mr. SARBANES. And Senator Stabenow of Michigan.

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I wish to very strongly underscore the arguments made by my very able colleague, Senator Mikulski, with respect to this amendment. I am very pleased to join with her in offering it. This amendment would put an end to a very costly and flawed A-76 competitive sourcing study at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which is, of course, one of our foremost military hospitals. There have been numerous and serious flaws in the conduct of this A-76 study. The study has been going on now for 6 years--contrary to law governing the A-76 process. As a result, it has been extraordinarily expensive and promises to be even more expensive if completed. The Federal employees actually were declared the winner of this competition in September of 2004, only to have that decision reversed earlier this year. The decision was reversed after a whole new set of amendments were made with respect to the bidding process. In fact, the solicitation has been amended a number of times with hundreds of changes, making the process terribly unfair to everyone involved. This particular A-76 is so egregious that it ought to be brought to an end, and that is what this amendment proposes to do. I believe the situation as it currently stands is also having a detrimental impact on the work being done at Walter Reed. The A-76 study covers base operation support services--workers who deal in landscaping and maintenance. The requirements now are that these A-76 processes cannot go on for more than 30 months--in part to avoid such a disruption in the workforce. However, this study has been going on for more than 6 years. Obviously it is having an impact on the morale of the employees and resulting in a loss in productivity. So I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this amendment, which will bring this costly and flawed A-76 study to an end and help Walter Reed maintain the high level of services which characterizes that fine institution. I would also add that the BRAC Commission has recommended the consolidation of Walter Reed with the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. That is supposed to take place over the next few years. That seems to me to be an additional argument for adopting this amendment. In other words, in a very short period of time, Walter Reed will move to a new campus where we will be developing a new, more modern, military hospital. At that point, the base operations workforce will have to be reshaped to fit the needs of this new facility. So I urge my colleagues to respect the reasonable rules of the bidding process, rules which have been so departed from in this instance. We should adopt this amendment to ensure that this and other competitive sourcing studies are conducted pursuant to the laws and regulations governing the A-76 process. I very strongly support my colleague. I commend her for her important leadership on this issue. Let's be fair to the employees. Let's honor a reasonable bidding process with its own rules and requirements. If Federal jobs are to be subject to the competitive sourcing process, Federal agencies should follow the rules and requirements governing that process. That has not been done in this instance, which is the reason I support the amendment that is pending before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the amendment now pending?

Mr. SARBANES. And we have this unanimous consent request to take 10 minutes in order to proceed; we are trying to help the chairman move this process along.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. How much time remains?

Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself a minute and a half. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to my able colleague from Wyoming. I don't quarrel with a lot of what he says, but this process was absolutely flawed. This was not a fair process. The rules were constantly being changed. If we are going to have competitive sourcing, it ought to be done according to the rules, with a respect for the competitive bidding process. That didn't happen here. This was put out for bid in June of 2000. It is now September of 2006. Under current law, none of these competitions can go on for more than 3 years. In 2004, the Federal employees won this competition. And the Army came back and changed the solicitation and put in new requirements for the bids. It is totally unfair, what is happening here. I respect the competitive bidding process, but there has to be some integrity to it. It has to have some decency to it. That is totally lacking in this situation. I urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I commend the very able Senator from Connecticut, not only for the very eloquent statement he made but for the leadership which he has shown with respect to this critically important issue of the right to vote. The Senator from Connecticut has framed and crafted and brought to the floor of the Senate in recent years extremely important legislation designed to assure all Americans their right to the ballot, thereby strengthening the very fundamentals of our democracy. I would be remiss if I did not take advantage of this opportunity to express the gratitude we all feel to him for his leadership in this area.

Mr. SARBANES. The legislation we have before us is as significant as any this Congress will consider. The Voting Rights Act was first signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. The fundamental importance of this law cannot be overstated. It is no exaggeration to say that it both changed the nature of American society and changed the course of American history. More than a quarter of a century before the Voting Rights Act was passed, the great scholar Gunnar Myrdal had written in his landmark study ``An American Dilemma,'' his study of race in this country, that ``the American Negro problem,'' as it was then known, was by no means a problem only for African Americans. Rather, he wrote, it is a problem ``in the heart of the American.'' Myrdal set out what he called the American creed, the abiding principles on which this Nation is founded. The American creed, he said, ``is the cement in the structure of this great and disparate nation . . . encompassing our ideals of the essential dignity of the individual human being, of the fundamental equality of all men [and women], and of certain inalienable rights to freedom, justice, and a fair opportunity.'' These ideals are ``written into the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and into the constitutions of the several states.'' Regrettably for much of our history, our Nation failed to live up to its most cherished principles. Our great challenge, as one observer has put it, has always been ``to live up to the ideals of the American Creed or face a deterioration of the values and visions that unite and make it great.'' Myrdal's study was, in effect, the 20th century equivalent of Thomas Jefferson's ``fire bell in the night.'' Yet more than a generation passed between the publication of Myrdal's study and the passage of the Voting Rights Act. As we debate this legislation and recall the tremendous sacrifices of Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King, after whom the legislation is named, I also call to my colleagues' attention the riveting autobiography of our House colleague Congressman John Lewis who for 20 years has represented Georgia's ninth district with such great distinction. On March 7, 1965, John Lewis was in Selma, AL, his home State, preparing with hundreds of others to march from Selma to Montgomery to assert the right to vote which at that time was granted or denied solely at the discretion of the State governments. ``Many of the men and women gathered on that ballfield,'' remembers Congressman Lewis, ``had come straight from church. They were still wearing their summer outfits. Some of the women had on high heels.'' Some 600 marchers set out, two abreast. All were prepared, quite literally, to die for the right to vote. And in the police assault that followed, many of them, including Congressman Lewis, nearly did. President Johnson's response the following Saturday was very clear. He said: The events of last Sunday cannot and will not be repeated, but the demonstrations in Selma have a much larger meaning. They are a protest against a deep and very unjust flaw in American democracy itself. Ninety-five years ago our Constitution was amended to require that no American be denied the right to vote because of race or color. Almost a century later, many Americans are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes. Therefore, this Monday I will send to the Congress a request for legislation to carry out the amendment of the Constitution. In signing the Voting Rights Act, President Johnson said: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men. Indeed, the act marked a decisive turning point in the long and arduous road we know as the civil rights movement. Since its enactment, the Voting Rights Act has been extended and amended four times to address problems of bigotry and discrimination that may take subtler forms than those confronting the Selma marchers in 1965, but that are no less insidious in undermining the constitutional principles by which we aspire to live. As our able colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, has noted, in reauthorizing and extending the act, we are, in fact, revitalizing it. We do so not only to honor the courageous men and women who, such as Congressman Lewis and Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King and so many others, risked and in some cases sacrificed their lives to uphold American principles, but to build a stronger foundation for the Nation we will leave to our children and grandchildren. The committee brought this bill to the Senate floor having constructed a compelling record that shows we have made progress but that entrenched discriminatory practices--some obvious and some hidden--remain. In uniting to support H.R. 9 and enacting this legislation, we will be acting in a spirit true to our better selves, to our Nation, and to the generations yet to come.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, our Nation's waterways, harbors, and ports are vital to our economic prosperity, the safety of those who navigate our waters, and to our quality of life. It is estimated that one out of every five jobs in the United States is dependent, to some extent, on commercial activities handled by our ports and harbors. In many instances, ship and barge transport is the safest, cheapest, and cleanest transportation mode. Likewise, our waterways provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, recreational opportunities for boaters, and contribute to the health and well-being of millions of people through their diversity, beauty, history, and natural environment. This legislation authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake water resource projects of great importance to our Nation's and our states' economy and maritime industry, public safety and to our environment. I am particularly pleased that the measure includes a number of provisions for which I have fought to help ensure the future health of the Port of Baltimore, the Chesapeake Bay, and Maryland's waterfront communities. With more than 4,000 miles of shoreline around the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean, 126 miles of deepwater shipping channels leading to the Port of Baltimore, some 70 small navigation projects critical to commercial and recreational fisherman and to local and regional economies, Maryland is a State which relies heavily on the navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Over the years, I and other members of the Maryland congressional delegation have worked hard to maintain and improve the Federal channel system--serving the Port of Baltimore and other communities throughout Maryland, to address the severe shoreline erosion problems on Maryland's Atlantic Coast, and to bring the Army Corps of Engineers' expertise to bear in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and Maryland's rivers and streams. While other ports are just now beginning to deepen their channels to 45 or 50 feet, we succeeded in deepening the port's main shipping channel to 50 feet 16 years ago making navigation safer, easier, and cheaper for ships using the channel and assuring that the route can handle the deep draft bulk cargo carriers in use today. We recently completed two critical safety improvements to the Port's channel system--the straightening of the Tolchester ``S'' turn and the widening and deepening of the Brewerton channel eastern extension--as well as some long-needed improvements to Baltimore harbor's anchorages and branch channels. We constructed a hurricane protection project at Ocean City, MD to help protect the citizens and the billions of dollars in public and private infrastructure in the area and restored the beach at the north end of Assateague Island National Seashore. We also completed numerous environmental restoration projects throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed from Jennings Randolph Lake in western Maryland to the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project--the largest and most environmentally significant island habitat restoration project ever undertaken in the Chesapeake Bay. These projects would not have taken place without the authorities and funding provided in previous Water Resources Development Acts. The measure before us will enable several, much-needed water resource infrastructure projects in Maryland to move forward. First, the bill authorizes a 50-percent expansion of the Poplar Island environmental restoration project, to provide additional dredged material capacity for the Port of Baltimore and additional habitat for the Chesapeake Bay's wildlife. Initially authorized by section 537 of the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 1996, the Poplar Island project has proved to be a tremendous success and a model for the Nation on how to dispose of dredged material. Instead of the traditional practice of treating the dredged material as a waste and dumping it overboard, we are putting approximately 40 million cubic yards of clean dredged material from the shipping channels leading to the Port of Baltimore into a productive use, restoring 1,140 acres of remote island habitat in the Chesapeake Bay, creating a haven for fish and wildlife, and helping reduce sediment degradation of the Bay's water quality. This represents a win-win situation for two of Maryland's most important assets--the Port of Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay. Last year, the Army Corps of Engineers completed two studies--a Baltimore Harbor and Channels Dredged Material Plan, DMMP, and an integrated General Reevaluation Report, GRR/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, SEIS, on the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project--which identified a critical need for new dredged material placement capacity for the Port of Baltimore by 2009 in order to meet Federal and State of Maryland requirements and recommended the expansion of Poplar Island as a preferred alternatives for addressing the dredged material capacity gap in an economically and environmentally sound manner. A subsequent Chief's Report submitted to Congress on March 31, 2006, recommended a 575-acre expansion of the existing Poplar Island and the raising of the island's existing upland cells to add approximately 28 million cubic yards of dredged material placement capacity and extend the project life by approximately 7 years. This measure authorizes the expansion of the existing Poplar Island project as recommended in the Chief's Report. It authorizes $256.1 million for the expansion project, bringing the total cost of the existing project and the expansion project to $643.4 million, with an estimated Federal cost of $482.4 million and an estimated non- Federal cost of $161 million. The Poplar Island environmental restoration project has been a top priority of mine, of the Maryland Port Administration and of the shipping and environmental communities for many years, and I am delighted that this legislation will enable us to move forward with the expansion of this project. Second, the bill contains three additional provisions authorizing a total of nearly $100 million which are critical to our continuing efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It reauthorizes and expands a program that we established in section 510 of WRDA 1996 known as the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program, raising the authorized funding from the current level of $10 million to $30 million. It increases the funding for Chesapeake Bay native oyster restoration to $50 million--a $20 million increase over current levels. And it authorizes the Smith Island ecosystem restoration project to reverse the tremendous loss of wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation around Smith Island, MD. In 1984, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a comprehensive study--the first such study ever undertaken--of the present and future uses and problems of Chesapeake Bay's water and related land resources. Since then the Corps has undertaken or participated in a variety of projects to help restore the Chesapeake Bay's water quality and living resources, including sewage treatment plant upgrades, making beneficial use of dredged materials, removing impediments to fish passage, mitigating the impacts of shoreline erosion, and restoring wetlands, habitat and oyster reefs. But despite these efforts, the Chesapeake Bay's health continues to languish. To restore the integrity of the ecosystem and to meet the goals established in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, nutrient and sediment loads must be significantly reduced, oyster populations must be increased, SAV and wetlands must be protected and restored, and remaining blockages to fish passage must be removed, among other actions. As the lead Federal agency in water resource management, the Corps has a vital role to play in this endeavor, and the programs authorized in this measure will enable the Corps to continue to participate in this effort. The funding increase provided for the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program will allow the Corps to expand design and construction assistance to State and local authorities for a variety of environmental restoration projects in the bay. The additional funds provided for native oyster restoration will help support the Chesapeake 2000's goal of increasing oyster populations by tenfold by the year 2010. And the new authority to construct the Smith Island environmental restoration projects will help stem the alarming loss of SAV and wetlands along the coastline of Martin National Wildlife Refuge and Smith Island, protecting approximately 720 acres and restoring about 1,400 acres of valuable habitat. Third, the measure provides the funding necessary to complete the C&O Canal rewatering project in Cumberland, MD. In 1952 a 1.2-mile section of the historic C&O Canal and turning basin at its Cumberland terminus was filled in by the Corps of Engineers during construction of the Cumberland, MD, and Ridgely, WV, flood protection project. The National Park Service and State and local authorities have long sought to rebuild and rewater the C&O Canal in this area to restore the integrity of the historic canal and assist in revitalizing the area as a major hub for tourism and environmentally sound economic development. The Corps investigated the feasibility of reconstructing and rewatering the turning basin and canal near its terminus and determined that it is feasible to rewater the canal successfully without compromising the flood protection for the city of Cumberland. Subsequently, Senator Mikulski and I secured a provision in WRDA 1999 authorizing the Corps to construct this project at a then-estimated total project cost of $15 million. Those estimates were based on a 50- percent design document completed in 1998. Since that time, the estimated cost of the project has increased due, in large part, to the finding of archeological objects and petroleum in the canal turning basin and prism as well as design refinements. The provisions included in this bill increase the authorized funding level for the project from $15 million to $25.75 million and will ensure that the full 1.2-mile section of canal and turning basin are completed. Fourth, the bill contains provisions to facilitate the restoration of the Anacostia River, one of the most degraded rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and in the Nation. Through a cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local, and private effort, significant progress has been made over the past decade to restore the Anacostia watershed. Today there are more than 60 local, State, and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration efforts, and more than $100 million in Federal, State, and local funds have been invested in this endeavor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has played a key role in improving tidal waterflow through the marsh, reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus, and restoring wetlands, but the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The provisions in this legislation require the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Maryland, the county executives of Montgomery County and Prince George's County, MD, and other stakeholders, to develop and make available to the public a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its tributaries. I wish to compliment the distinguished chairmen of the committee and the subcommittee, Senators Inhofe and Bond, and the ranking members, Senators Jeffords and Baucus, for including these provisions and for their work on this legislation. This legislation is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Santorum amendment No. 4575 is a violation of rule XVI. It is legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. SARBANES. I would ask the chairman of the committee, does he want to do the Kyl amendment first?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I make a point of order that Kyl amendment No. 4643 is a rule XVI violation. It is legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. SARBANES. And the amendment falls, I take it?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is now the pending business?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thought the request on this side was going to be----