Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES. These are the very names that were provided to Mr. Bolton; is that right?

Mr. SARBANES. And his staff?

Mr. SARBANES. But there is a refusal to provide them to the committee which now has to make a judgment as to whether Mr. Bolton should be confirmed to be the American ambassador to the United Nations?

Mr. SARBANES. Well, what rationale is advanced, if any, for this backhanded treatment of the institutions of the Senate, these two important committees, the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, both of which are trying to conduct due diligence on this nominee? I might say to my colleague, I remember when we held the nomination hearings for John Negroponte and Richard Holbrooke. That investigation went over an extended period of time and probed very deeply. The end result, of course, was that questions that had been raised were answered satisfactorily, and the body was able to come to a consensus about those nominees. I cannot think of a rationale that can be offered that would warrant a withholding of this information.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator for yielding. I just underscore this raises, I think, very fundamental and difficult questions about how we are supposed to carry out our responsibilities, in terms of advice and consent, if we are not allowed to get what appears to be relevant information or what might well be relevant information. The request is fairly limited, as I understand it, in terms of what is being sought. It seems to me that information ought to be provided to the Senate, or the appropriate agents or organs of the Senate, in order to put us into a position to at least address that aspect of this situation. There are many other aspects of the Bolton situation that I want to speak to later. But this one, it seems to me, is clearly an instance in which we are simply being blocked or frustrated from having information which is important to us carrying out our task, and is in such contrast with the inquiries that were made about other nominees to be U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations. Of course, I mentioned two of those. The inquiries there went over quite a sustained period of time. We heard these complaints that Bolton is being held up. His nomination only came to us in March, I believe, of this year--March. Ambassador Holbrooke was nominated in June of 1998. He was finally confirmed in August of 1999. In the interim, these extensive investigations were run. I do not have the exact dates on Ambassador Negroponte, but I know that period of time extended well beyond what is already involved with respect to John Bolton.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, there you are. That underscores the point I am trying to make. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. SARBANES. That is a pretty good definition.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand there are 6 minutes remaining on this side.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 3 of the 6 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in very strong opposition to the Sessions amendment. It is a bad idea, both from the standpoint of process and policy. First, it would undo the carefully balanced package developed by the four committees of jurisdiction. Four committees have worked putting this package together: the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee, and the Commerce Committee. All have been involved in this process. They have spent literally years laying the groundwork for this bill, working ever since passage of the last bill. When we went through the last session of congress, we could not get a bill passed. We have since had interim extensions which were of concern. The chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the ranking member have spent countless hours trying to put together a sensible and reasonable package, making tough decisions regarding funding allocations among the various programs. This amendment would begin the process of unraveling those committee decisions, both as they affect highways and transit. I warn my colleagues at the outset, this is a bad way to proceed on a complicated and important piece of legislation which is important to every single Member of this body-- important to their Governors, important to their county officials, and right on down the line. We know as a matter of policy there is tremendous stress on our transportation system. The costs we pay in congestion have been detailed by the Texas Transportation Institute. My own view is we need even more investment in our transportation system, and it is provided for in this bill. I understand the practicalities of the situation in which we find ourselves. Failure to make the needed investment in transportation systems would constrain our economic competitiveness and leave us at a disadvantage in world competition. There are very few bills that are so essential to the economic well- being of our country as this bill. This transportation infrastructure bill is critical to economic development and economic competitiveness in all 50 States. Failure to make the investment that is necessary will constitute a setback to our efforts to build a better and stronger economy.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator from Montana. The transportation industry is strongly opposed to this amendment. For example, to take one instance of a group we deal with, given the jurisdiction of our Banking Committee over mass transit, the American Public Transportation Association, which represents 1,500 transit agencies across the country, observes that the Sessions amendment would undo the bipartisan and widely supported efforts in the Senate in support of increased and balanced transportation infrastructure investment and should be strongly opposed. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to Chairman Inhofe in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Let me again underscore how vitally important the programs authorized in the underlying bill are for the economic and social health of our Nation. As with any large and complex piece of legislation, not everyone will be satisfied. I think this bill represents a reasonable approach to meeting our urgent transportation needs. The pending amendment would begin the process of unraveling that approach to which so much effort has been devoted by so many people. I particularly rticularly thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords and Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their involvement in trying to shape a good piece of legislation. I didn't agree with every decision that is in this package, but I see it as a significant forward step in dealing with a very important national priority. I hope my colleagues will reject the Sessions amendment and that we will then go on to approve the Inhofe substitute amendment and final passage of this bill. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC, May 16, 2005. Hon. James M. Inhofe, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Inhofe: On behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and its more than 1,500 member organizations, I write to express our strong opposition to the amendment Senator Sessions offered--#646-- to H.R. 3. That amendment would sharply reduce funding of a number of programs in H.R. 3 by some $10.7 billion over six years. It is critically important that H.R. 3 be passed by the Senate at the enhanced level of funding included in the Inhofe substitute amendment. The Inhofe substitute amendment is a balanced and carefully crafted measure that has strong bipartisan support from the leadership of the Senate Banking, Environment and Public Works, and Finance Committees. Transit and highway needs are critical and have been documented by the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. The Inhofe substitute amendment addresses those needs in a balanced approach supported by a broad range of affected groups and coalitions. In contrast, the amendment offered by Senator Sessions would dramatically cut a number of programs across the board, including the transit formula program by $5 billion, the congestion mitigation and air quality program by $4 billion, and other programs that enjoy broad bipartisan support. In short, the Sessions amendment would undo the bipartisan and widely supported efforts in the Senate in support of increased and balanced transportation infrastructure investment and should strongly be opposed. If you have questions on this matter, please have your staff contact Rob Healy of APTA's Government Affairs Department at (202) 496-4811 or email rhealy@apta.com. Sincerely yours, William W. Millar, President.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it is critically important that we move forward with this reauthorization of the Nation's highway and transit programs. Although the funding levels contained in this measure are lower than many of us believe are warranted or necessary to address our pressing transportation infrastructure needs, given the budget constraints within which we had to work, I think we have responded with a reasoned and balanced package that will maintain and enhance our transit, rail and highway systems. There is a huge backlog of needed repairs, replacements, and upgrades to bring our transportation network--our roads, bridges, transit systems and railroads--up to standards. The Department of Transportation's Conditions and Performance Report estimates that an average of $127 billion per year is needed over the next two decades to maintain and improve the condition of these systems. Other estimates show an even greater need. This backlog constrains our Nation's economic competitiveness, leaves more and more Americans stuck in traffic, contributes to air pollution and results in unnecessary fatalities. Just last week, the Texas Transportation Institute released its annual ``Urban Mobility Report,'' which measures traffic congestion in the Nation's 85 largest cities. The report found that congestion across the country delayed travelers by 3.7 billion hours and wasted 2.3 billion gallons of gasoline in 2003. That is nearly 80 million more hours and 70 million more gallons of fuel in 2003 than in 2002. Average hours spent in rush hour traffic jams jumped from 16 in 1982 to 47 in 2003. The Washington Metropolitan area continues to suffer the third- worst traffic congestion in the country, costing area drivers an estimated $2.46 billion in lost time, fuel and productivity, or $577 per commuter. Equally important, the study found that this area would have the worst congestion in the country if not for our public transportation systems. As these figures show, congestion has a real economic cost, in addition to the psychological and social costs of spending hours each day sitting in traffic. We cannot afford to let these costs of congestion grow any further. In my judgment, the report underscores the need to bolster investment in our transportation infrastructure and to put in place a sensible, balanced transportation network. Over the past 2 years, we have been working hard in the Congress to do just that: to reauthorize the Nation's surface transportation program, and to bring our transportation network up to standards. Last year, the Senate approved a measure authorizing $318 billion in funding over the next six years-- an increase of $100 billion over the previous measure--which, in my view, provided the kind of investment needed to not only prevent further deterioration of our transportation network, but to improve the system, relieve congestion and save lives. Unfortunately, SAFETEA did not emerge from conference due in large part to the unwillingness of the administration and the House leadership to support that level of investment. As a result, we have had to pass six short-term extensions of the previous transportation legislation, TEA-21. The uncertainty inherent in these short-term extensions hinders our State and local partners in their efforts to meet the daily challenges of maintaining our transportation infrastructure and planning for improvements. The measure that is before the Senate this year provides $295 billion over the next 6 years in highway and transit funding. That is $11 billion more than the level recently approved by the House and $39 billion more than was originally recommended in the President's reauthorization proposal. For our Nation's roadways and bridges, this legislation authorizes an average increase of nearly 31 percent in funding to enable States and localities to make desperately needed repairs and improvements. Maryland's share of highway funding will grow by more than $820 million over the next 6 years, from $2.66 billion to $3.49 billion, compared to the level provided in TEA-21, to help upgrade our highway infrastructure. This represents an average of more than $142 million more each year than was provided under TEA-21. In the next two decades, Maryland's driving age population is expected to increase by nearly 20 percent, the number of licensed drivers by 25 percent, and the number of registered vehicles by nearly 30 percent--and this will mean significantly more traffic on our roads and pressures on our transit systems. Maryland's Department of Transportation is facing deficient roads and bridges as well as key gaps and bottlenecks within the State's transportation system that are known to cause delay and congestion. Maryland has an estimated unfunded capital need for more than $13 billion in highway maintenance, construction and reconstruction over the next ten years. Clearly, Maryland must have adequate funding to address these transportation challenges and to facilitate overall mobility--and the funds made available under this measure will be a significant help in this regard. Importantly, the measure preserves the dedicated funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality--CMAQ--program which helps States and local governments improve air quality in nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act; the Transportation Enhancement set-aside provisions which support bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other community based projects, as well as the other core TEA-21 programs--Interstate maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge and the Surface Transportation Program. Likewise, TEA-21's basic principles of flexibility, intermodalism, strategic infrastructure investment, and commitment to safety are retained. I am especially pleased that the Senate rejected an amendment to strike the stormwater runoff mitigation provision that is contained in the measure, which sets aside 2 percent of a State's Surface Transportation Program for stormwater runoff mitigation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, polluted stormwater from impervious surfaces such as roads is a leading cause of impairment for nearly 40 percent of U.S. waterways not meeting water quality standards. In the Chesapeake Bay region, it is estimated that runoff from highways contributes nearly 7 million pounds of nitrogen, 1 million pounds of phosphorous and 167,000 tons of sediment annually to the bay. In Maryland alone, the Center for Watershed Protection estimates that the 7500 miles of Federal-aid highways generate yearly loads of 1.2 million pounds of nitrogen, 127,000 pounds of phosphorous and 25,000 pounds of sediment into Maryland waterways and eventually into Chesapeake Bay each year. A study by the Chesapeake Bay Commission estimates stormwater retrofit costs at more than $2.5 billion across the watershed. The stormwater provision will provide more than $66 million for the bay States and local governments for stormwater abatement, of which approximately $12.75 million would be available for Maryland. For our Nation's transit systems, the legislation authorizes $53.8 billion--$12.3 billion more than provided in TEA-21--to modernize and expand our transit facilities. These funds will go a long way to meeting the growing demand for transit in cities, towns, rural areas, and suburban jurisdictions across the country. Maryland's formula share of transit funding will grow by nearly 52 percent over the next 6 years--from $571 million to $870 million. These funds are absolutely critical to Maryland's efforts to maintain and upgrade the Baltimore and Washington Metro systems, the MARC commuter rail system serving Baltimore, Washington, DC, Frederick, and Brunswick, and the Baltimore Light Rail system. Bus systems and paratransit systems for elderly and disabled people throughout Maryland will also receive a big boost in funding. The measure also includes a provision reauthorizing the National Transportation Center--NTC--at Morgan State University. The NTC conducts important research, education and technology transfer activities that support workforce development of minorities and women, and addresses urban transportation problems. In addition, it includes provisions which would address a very important issue for employees of the Food and Drug Administration who will be relocating to the new FDA headquarters at White Oak, MD, enabling the agency to use its own vehicles to offer employees shuttle service to and from the metro system at Silver Spring and potentially other transit facilities. The potential impact of this provision on regional traffic is not insignificant. When construction of the White Oak complex is completed, FDA will house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. By enabling this access from FDA's new campus to a transit station, we can reduce congestion on area roadways, improve our environment and elevate the quality of life for FDA employees. The legislation also includes a requirement for the Federal Transit Administration to report to Congress on ways to promote improved access to and increased usage of tax-free transit benefits at Federal agencies in the National Capital Region. Increasing use of public transit by federal employees has the potential to greatly aid our efforts to combat congestion and pollution in the region. I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes the Transit in Parks Act, or TRIP, which I introduced. This new Federal transit grant initiative will support the development of alternative transportation services--everything from rail or clean fuel bus projects to pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. It will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks--quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. Like any other complex and comprehensive piece of legislation, this bill has its share of imperfections. But if we are to ensure not only the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services, but also the future competitiveness and productivity of our economy, we must make these investments, and move forward with this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this measure.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2005, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Mikulski and Warner. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the Nation. All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2003 Americans in 85 urban areas spent 3.7 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $64.8 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that without transit, the 85 urban areas they studied would have suffered an additional 1.1 billion hours of delay, a 27 percent increase, which would have added $18 billion to the national cost of congestion. Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for both employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2005 to $105 per month. Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average. In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work. According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 150,000 employees-- more than one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region. The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover employees in the legislative and judicial branches, for example, or in dozens of independent agencies. While many of the employers in those organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit. Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations. The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By the middle of this year, FDA expects to have 1,850 employees located at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees. This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal Government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop. The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and the independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to thousands of additional federal employees in the Washington, DC region. Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation. Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown by over 200 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life. I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2005, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Mikulski and Warner. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the Nation. All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2003 Americans in 85 urban areas spent 3.7 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $64.8 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that without transit, the 85 urban areas they studied would have suffered an additional 1.1 billion hours of delay, a 27 percent increase, which would have added $18 billion to the national cost of congestion. Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for both employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2005 to $105 per month. Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average. In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work. According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 150,000 employees-- more than one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region. The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover employees in the legislative and judicial branches, for example, or in dozens of independent agencies. While many of the employers in those organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit. Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations. The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By the middle of this year, FDA expects to have 1,850 employees located at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees. This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal Government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop. The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and the independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to thousands of additional federal employees in the Washington, DC region. Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation. Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown by over 200 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life. I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, when President Kennedy established Older Americans Month in 1963, he began an important tradition of designating a time for our country to honor older citizens for their many accomplishments and contributions to our Nation. Now, as we recognize May as ``Older Americans Month,'' I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the contributions senior citizens have made in shaping our Nation and to reassert our commitment to enhancing the living standard of our senior community. This year's theme is ``Celebrate Long Term Living.'' Many seniors in Maryland exemplify that idea, continuing to lead vital, active lives throughout their ``golden years.'' Bob Ray Perry Hall, from Hamilton, MD, who ran every day from April 4, 1967 until his 68th birthday on April 7, 2005, is one such example. Mr. Hall holds the longest consecutive running streak in the United States and the second longest record in the entire world, a remarkable accomplishment at any age. Ms. Evelyn Wright of Annapolis is another senior to celebrate. In 2003, Ms. Wright was named National Master Field Athlete of the Year for 2003 and since the age of 55, she has amassed hundreds of medals and trophies as a competitor in Senior Olympic events. She started her track and field career with the softball throw, but now competes in a multitude of events including pole vault, high jump, long jump, and hammer throw. She continues to travel around the country competing and setting track and field records for her age group. Many seniors in Maryland are enjoying old age by starting new ventures. At age 68 and 66 respectively, Emily Levitas and Linda Segal decided to join forces and become co-owners of ``Gotta Have Bags,'' a successful handbag store located in Hampden. The list of enterprising, energetic, and active Maryland seniors and others throughout the Nation goes on and on and extends to all facets of life. We are very grateful for the enormous contributions they make day in and day out. But as a Nation, we do not always live up to our end of the bargain. There is much to be done to help seniors sustain quality long-term living. I have worked diligently in the Senate to ensure that older Americans are able to live with dignity and independence during their later years, and we will continue to fight the recent slew of misguided attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and other programs so crucial to senior citizens. I have significant concerns about the impact of Medicaid cuts on seniors. People often forget that Medicaid is the largest funding source for long-term care services, institutional and home-based, for the elderly. Without such aid, many older Americans could not manage to pay for adequate care. Yet the Administration proposes to slash this program while extending tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. It is difficult to ``celebrate long-term living'' if you cannot afford to secure reasonable quality healthcare and long-term living facilities. Another critical need that must be addressed is affordable prescription drugs. I voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 because I believed it would jeopardize promises that we as a Nation have made to seniors. I was principally concerned that the new law would fail to provide a comprehensive, consistent, and affordable prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Many of the concerns that I had during consideration of that measure are now coming to fruition. Indeed, as we prepare for the implementation of the drug benefit in 2006, we are just now learning that seniors will encounter the uncertainty of incomplete coverage for drug costs, along with rapidly rising pharmaceutical costs. To address these concerns, I favor proposals that provide Medicare beneficiaries with full prescription drug coverage. In addition, a number of my colleagues and I supported legislation during the Senate's consideration of the Medicare overhaul that would have controlled drug prices by allowing our Government to negotiate directly with drug companies. Unfortunately, these proposals were defeated when they came to the Senate for a full vote, but I continue to work with my colleagues on these and other proposals to bring drug prices under control. On top of all of this, the Medicare trustees have predicted exhaustion of the Medicare Hospital Inpatient Trust Fund in 2020. With the rising costs of drugs and health care in general, and the implicit lack of means to reduce drug costs in the new law, we will be faced with hard decisions sooner than originally anticipated. The answer to the funding gap must not be to decrease benefits. A comprehensive Medicare plan and affordable pharmaceuticals are two important pieces that could help seniors live with dignity and independently, but these crucial needs remain very much in jeopardy. Finally, our seniors deserve the guarantees promised to them after years of contributing to the Social Security program. In 1935, President Roosevelt sought to create a program that would ``give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.'' There are those who suggest that the only way Social Security can meet the expanding demand of future retirees is by creating private accounts and simultaneously decreasing benefits. We must work to preserve, not diminish, Roosevelt's legacy. Thus far, Social Security has been effective in improving the standard of living and reducing poverty among the elderly and disabled by providing an inflation-indexed, defined benefit, no matter how long an individual lives and regardless of the vagaries of the stock market. Throughout their lives, seniors have paid into a system with the understanding that their benefits will be there for them when they retire. We must uphold our end of the bargain and ensure that these benefits are available. The words of President Roosevelt should continue to guide our conscience. This Older Americans Month I ask my colleagues to respect and renew our commitment to our seniors and all of our citizens. As seniors face old age, they should not face uncertainty about their living situations, about their access to health care, and about their financial circumstances. Our older Americans add great value to our Nation. We must take this month as an opportunity to redouble our efforts on behalf of this and future generations so that our older Americans can continue to ``Celebrate Long-Term Living'' now and well into the future.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to follow the Senator from Alabama, after he completes his statement.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to join my able and distinguished colleague from Alabama, the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, in strong support of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005, which has been incorporated into the pending amendment which was offered yesterday by Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Federal Public Transportation Act was reported out by the Banking Committee earlier this year, and, I might add, by a unanimous voice vote. Moreover, although the funding level provided in this bill is lower than in the one we passed last year, the program structure and policy decisions reflected in this bill are almost identical to those included in S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Act, SAFETEA, which passed the Senate last year with overwhelming bipartisan support. At the very outset, I express my appreciation to Chairman Shelby who worked tirelessly on the development of this legislation last year, reaching across the aisle in a cooperative manner to develop a transit bill that will begin to address the urgent needs faced by communities all across the country. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords; and the Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, for their efforts to move this very important bill forward. As has already been observed in this debate, SAFETEA did not emerge from conference last year, regrettably, due in large part to the unwillingness of the administration to support the kind of significant investment needed to meet our pressing transit and highway needs. As a result, we have had to pass six short-term extensions of the previous transportation legislation, TEA-21. The uncertainty inherent in these short-term extensions hinders our State and local partners in their efforts to meet the daily challenges of maintaining our transportation infrastructure and planning for improvements. I want to express my appreciation to a number of colleagues who worked to provide additional resources for transportation beyond what was reported out by the various committees earlier this year. A higher level of investment is essential if we are to keep up with the increasing demand along our entire transportation network. I want to say a few words about the transit title, which was supported by every member of the Banking Committee. Over the last several years, the Banking Committee and its Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, under the leadership first of Senator Reed of Rhode Island and then more recently of Senator Allard of Colorado, has held a series of hearings on the Federal transit program and its contribution to reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and improving our quality of life. Over the course of those hearings, we heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, Federal Transit Administrator Jenna Dorn, representatives of transit agencies from around the country, mayors, business and labor leaders, environmentalists, economic development experts, and transit riders themselves. Virtually all of the witnesses agreed that the investment that had been made under TEA-21 contributed to a renaissance for transit in this country. In fact, transit ridership is up 23 percent since 1995, and is still increasing, even faster than the growth in highway use. Transit plays a critical role in our efforts to combat congestion. My able colleague, the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Shelby, made reference to a study released just this week by the Texas Transportation Institute, talking about the tremendous cost to the Nation in lost time and wasted fuel because of congestion--people simply stuck in traffic. We heard testimony at our hearings about many other important benefits of transit as well. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified that $1 billion of capital investment in transit creates almost 50,000 jobs. Moreover, the economic development benefits of transit are becoming more and more apparent as new systems come into service. For example, we heard testimony from one of the county commissioners in Dallas that over $1 billion had been invested in private development along Dallas's existing and future light rail lines, raising nearby property values and supporting thousands of jobs. We heard from a representative of BellSouth that his company had decided to relocate almost 10,000 employees from scattered sites in suburban Atlanta to three downtown buildings near the MARTA rail stations because, as he put it, transit ``saves employees time. It saves employees money. It saves wear and tear on the employees' spirit.'' Transit benefits the economy in other ways as well. For example, transit investments in one community can have repercussions in many areas around the country. The president of the American Public Transportation Association, Bill Millar, who has testified before the Senate on a number of occasions, pointed out that when one locality builds a rail system or develops its bus system, the manufacturing or the assembly of those rail cars and buses may well be done in a different jurisdiction. So one has to keep in mind when considering the economic benefits of transit, it is not only the area that is upgrading its transit system that benefits. That area will invariably spend its money on a whole range of supplies and services which are produced elsewhere in the country. As Mr. Millar said: While the Federal money would appear to be going one place, the impact of that money tends to go very far and wide. Of course, transit is about more than our economic life. It is also about our quality of life. During our hearings, we heard a great deal about the importance of transit to our senior citizens, our young people, the disabled, and others who rely on transit for their daily mobility needs. Several of our witnesses observed that the increased investment in transit and paratransit services under the previous bill provided the crucial link between home and a job, school, or a doctor's office, for millions of people who otherwise might not have been able to participate fully in the life of their community. Further, we saw after 9/11 how transit can be an important lifeline in other respects, as well. We had very moving testimony during our hearings about the efforts made by transit operators on that day to move tens of thousands of people quickly and safely out of our city centers. As a result of transit's many benefits, the demand for transit is continuing to increase all across the Nation. Small towns, rural areas, suburban jurisdictions, and large cities, are all struggling to keep up with the need to provide safe and reliable transit service for their citizens. The Department of Transportation has estimated that very significant sums will be needed to maintain the condition and performance of transit systems across the country. The transit title authorizes $53.8 billion in transit investment. I am frank to say I believe that the transit needs of the nation would justify even more, but I am pleased to say that under this bill transit will see a significant increase in funding over TEA-21. A strong transit program is essential to our efforts to improve our citizens' mobility and strengthen our national economy. I want to take just a moment or two to highlight some of the most important features of the amendment before us with respect to transit. The amendment provides for growth in both the urban and rural formula program, with added emphasis placed on the rural program. The committee was sensitive to the needs of the rural areas of our country, and the rural program will see significant growth in order to help States with large rural areas provide the services their residents need. The bill also provides increased funding in the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program. This funding is very important to helping cities with older rail systems, which in some cases were built almost a century ago, make the investments needed to preserve those highly successful systems, which literally move millions of people every working day. The New Starts program, which helps communities make their first major investment in transit as well as expand existing systems, also grows under this bill. The New Starts program will enable communities to address their mobility and development needs with transit investment and to gain the benefits of transit that exist elsewhere in the country. Furthermore, the amendment maintains the existing 80 percent Federal match on new starts transit projects, and thus continues the parity that has existed between the local match requirement for highway and transit projects. This is a very important factor in ensuring that the investment decision at the local level is not weighted in one direction or the other because of a more favorable local match requirement. Mayor McCory of Charlotte, NC, made this point in one of our hearings when he observed that: There's a strong need to keep the program 80-20, as we do for other forms of transportation, including roads. That does send a strong message that transit is as important as our road network. The bill makes a significant change in the new starts program by allowing new starts funding to be used for the first time to fund transit projects that do not operate along a fixed guideway, as long as the project is seeking less than $75 million in Federal funds. There are only a few examples of such projects currently operating in the Nation, and I hope to work with the Federal Transit Administration to ensure that the FTA develops an appropriate quantitative methodology for evaluating the costs and benefits of such projects, particularly as they relate to land use and economic development impacts. As we begin to experiment with different forms of transit service, we must be careful not to adversely impact FTA's highly competitive and successful process for moving projects through the New Starts Program. While the bill preserves the general structure of TEA-21, several new formulas are included to target transit funds more directly to those States and cities with extraordinary transportation needs. The bill includes a new growth and density formula. The growth portion will distribute funds to all States based on their expected future population, and the density portion will provide funding to those States whose populations are above a certain density threshold. The bill also includes an incentive tier to reward small transit- intensive cities, those cities with a population between 50,000 and 200,000 which provide higher than average amounts of transit service. The funds distributed under these new formulas will help communities address their unique transportation needs. The bill includes a requirement that metropolitan planning organizations development a public participation plan to ensure that public transportation employees, affected community members, users of public transportation, freight shippers, private sector providers--all the interested parties concerned about the transportation infrastructure--have an opportunity to participate in the transportation plan approval process. Transportation investments are among the most important decisions made at the local level. I firmly believe all interested parties should have an opportunity to contribute to this process. Our transportation infrastructure is central to making our economy and, indeed, our society work day to day. That is why this is such a critical and important piece of legislation. Finally, I am pleased that the legislation includes a new Transit in Parks Program to help national parks and other public lands find alternative transportation solutions to the traffic problems they are now facing. This is a program the administration supports. It has very strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It is an effort to address the problem of overcrowding that has come with increased visitation to our national parks and other public lands. In some cases people must wait in long lines to get into a national park, or they get to the entrance and find they are turned back because the park's roads and parking lots are at capacity. TEA-21 required the Department of Transportation to conduct a study of alternative transportation needs in our national parks and other public lands, and that study confirmed that the parks are ready and willing to develop transit alternatives. This legislation will help the parks make investments in traditional public transit, such as shuttle buses or trolleys, or other types of public transportation appropriate to the park setting, such as waterborne transportation or bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In closing, let me note that there are a number of other provisions in the legislation that modify previous aspects of the transit programs, but for the most part the committee's intention was not to enact major changes to a program that has worked well. The committee put a great deal of effort into developing a package that would recognize the various types of transit needs across the Nation. Of course, as with any program with limited resources, no one gets as much as they would like. But given the framework within which the committee had to work, I think we have responded fairly and rationally to the needs that have been expressed to us. All in all, I think this is a balanced package, which I am pleased to commend to my colleagues. This bill provides essential support to our local and State partners in their efforts to combat congestion and pollution and to ensure that their citizens can access safe and reliable transit services. It is no exaggeration to say this is essential legislation for the future strength and vitality of our economy and of our society, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. As this wall of debt is built up, I want to come back again to the carrying cost on that debt. It has to be understood, in each annual budget, there is going to be a larger and larger amount to cover the interest charge on this expanding debt that is being built up year to year. Furthermore, if we run a risk that other countries are not going to want to hold our paper, as they are doing, we are probably going to have to raise our interest rates. In fact, interest rates are already on the way up, in any event. If you have to raise them even more, to get others to continue to hold our paper, the carrying charge is going to go up. So the carrying charge is going to go up because the debt is going up, and it is also going to go up because the interest rates will be going up. So there will be a double blow dealt to the American economy, and a bigger and bigger chunk of each year's budget will be eaten up in paying the interest charges on this enormous debt. Isn't that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Isn't it a dramatic demonstration of a choice in priorities, that rather than choosing to fund education, to give young people these opportunities which have been paid for, what they now say is, we had to cut the programs because we have a deficit problem? The very able Senator from Massachusetts took that into consideration when he proposed his amendment because he wasn't going to add to the deficit. He was going to cover the costs of the amendment by closing these egregious loopholes in corporate taxes. They came along and cut the education programs and allowed the egregious tax loopholes to continue. It is a dramatic demonstration of the priorities of this Republican budget.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question on that chart?

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, the President's budget, and this budget resolution, do not provide anything for the long-term costs of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the continuing war on terror?

Mr. SARBANES. So the budget is not really presenting a true picture of what we can anticipate in terms of expenditures; is that correct?