Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Yes.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, it is not only that we have not been able to get up to here, we have not been able to even get back to the jobs we had at the beginning of the recession. We are still well below, about 2.3 million jobs, where we were when the recession began in the early months of 2001, absolutely.

Mr. SARBANES. I want to clarify one point.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, I say to my colleagues it is classic trickle-down theory. It has been discredited before. Yet here it is back before us again, classic trickle-down economics. Every administration since Herbert Hoover, which was, of course, classic trickle-down economics, Democratic and Republican, has had a net creation of jobs over the course of its administration. In other words, over that 4-year period, every administration were able to have a net gain in jobs. This administration is about 2.3 million jobs below where the Nation was when they came into office--down about 2.3 million jobs. It is the first administration since Herbert Hoover that will not show a net gain in jobs over the course of its 4-year tenure. That fact needs to be laid out before the American people. This recession we experienced began 35 months ago, the first few months into the Bush administration. The economy today has fewer jobs than it did then. This is the first recession since the Great Depression in which the economy failed, over a 35-month period, to recreate all the jobs that were lost in that recession. In a typical business cycle, we long ago would have recouped those jobs and gone on from there. That has been the case--and this is a long time period--in every recession we have experienced since the Great Depression. But here we have a situation in which jobs are not being created to close the gap, and there is no real prospect, in the few months remaining, of meeting Treasury Secretary Snow's prediction. To do so, we would have to average about 444,000 jobs per month out into the fall of this year. Over the last 3 months, we averaged only 42,000 new jobs per month, as opposed to 440,000. This, of course, raises a number of difficult problems. We have seen manufacturing jobs continue to fall and they have now fallen for 43 consecutive months. We see temporary jobs increasing. We see people dropping out of the labor force. Last month, 392,000 people left the labor force. People come in and say, you know the unemployment rate didn't go up. But if people drop out of the labor force and are not looking for work, they are not counted as unemployed. One of the reasons is they become so discouraged they drop out. That helps to keep the unemployment rate flat, but the exodus from the labor market is reflected in the job figures.

Mr. SARBANES. I would like to pick up on the Senator's point about the cost of adjusting the alternative minimum tax. Of course, the alternative minimum tax was put in place in order to tax wealthy people who are using various deductions and exemptions, and so forth, not to pay taxes. The idea was, at a minimum you ought to pay a certain amount of tax. There was a huge public outcry about that--justifiably so in my opinion. So we put it into place. Of course, as the economy evolves, you have inflation and so forth and so on, and you have to keep adjusting it; otherwise, it is going to work its way down further into the middle class. It was never intended to do that. So it has been adjusted from time to time. In fact, the President is proposing in his budget, as I understand it, a 1-year adjustment--not projecting it out. Of course, that raises the question immediately in your mind: Why a 1-year adjustment? I think it is obvious why, if you do this, because it shows if you really adjust it as it ought to be adjusted, you are projecting out $658 billion in a 10-year cost to reform the alternative minimum tax. There is a $658 billion 10-year cost to reform the alternative minimum tax. Here you have $1.6 trillion to extend and make permanent the existing tax cuts, the sum total of which is $2.2 trillion.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague from North Dakota joining with me in this exploration of the implications of this budget. I will talk about job creation for a moment, and to indicate any budget we deal with, which is the most important Government document we act upon, contains thousands of decisions that are critical to our national life. Those decisions reflect important choices in terms of the priorities for our country. We have just been engaged in a discussion about tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. Are we more concerned with strengthening Social Security to make sure that people in retirement are adequately covered or making the necessary investments in education, transportation, and the environment? All of those decisions are involved in crafting the budget. In its composite, the budget is a very important macroeconomic document because it sets the fiscal path for dealing with the overall economy. We ask the question, Will the budget fund the programs, create jobs, and strengthen our economy? Will the budget have long-run structural deficits? What will be the impact of those deficits on our future economic performance? Will it move us toward full employment or away from it? We talked about the credibility of the President's budget and the fact that it fails to account fully for what the projections should be. We talked about the budget's failure to project for 10 years to show the full cost of making these tax cuts permanent, the failure to adjust for the alternative minimum tax, and the fact that the budget has zero in it for our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who are they kidding? Everyone knows that our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to cost something. Then they say: Well, we cannot really estimate. They should make a good-faith estimate for inclusion in the budget. We are confronted with these facts, and again and again we are not getting the full picture. It is a little bit like things are under shells. If you lift off the cover, all of a sudden you discover another problem. When the President proposed his first massive tax cut, he told us, ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits.'' That is what President Bush said when he came into office. In the first budget he submitted, he predicted, for fiscal year 2004--the year we are now in--that we would have a $262 billion surplus. This was the President's prediction. The following year, with a budget already in deficit, the President advocated another tax cut. At that time, he said, ``Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' And the President's budget at that time--that is, the next year--stated the deficit would be so short term that by fiscal year 2004--the year we are now in--the Government would be back in surplus by $14 billion. Last year, on the brink of war with Iraq, the President proposed yet another tax cut. He also submitted a budget that did not include the cost of the war. He predicted that the deficit for fiscal year 2004 would be $307 billion. Now, in 3 years, the President had shifted from predicting a surplus of $262 billion for 2004 to the next year when he predicted a surplus of $14 billion for 2004. Then, when he submitted the 2004 budget, he predicted a deficit of $307 billion. So over the 3-year period, we went from a $262 billion surplus, predicted for the year we are in, to a $307 billion deficit. That is a change of $569 billion. It is pretty clear that although the President said, when he submitted the 2004 budget, he was predicting a deficit of $307 billion, it looks now as if the 2004 deficit will be about $520 billion. That is $780 billion more than the President predicted in 2001, $535 billion more than he predicted in 2002, and $214 billion more than he predicted when he sent this year's budget--the budget we are in--to the Congress. So we are told we can do these big tax cuts and that it will not matter because we are not going to have a deficit. And here we are deeply in the hole. What is the consequence of this? Some might say: Well, he is producing jobs. We had an economic slowdown, and now we are producing jobs. We are putting the country back to work. Let's look at those predictions and what has actually happened. In the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration forecasted that in 2004 the economy would have 138.3 million jobs. Last year, the President lowered that estimate to 135.2 million jobs. And in his most recent economic report, he lowered it again to 132.7 million jobs. In other words, in just 2 years, the forecast for jobs in the country has been lowered by 6 million. When the President passed the 2003 tax cut, the administration predicted that by January 2004, the economy would create over 2 million jobs. In the fall of 2003, Secretary Snow predicted the U.S. economy would create 2 million new jobs from the third quarter of 2003 until the third quarter of 2004--an average of over 200,000 jobs a month. What has happened? We just got the figures on Friday for the month of February. For the month of February, it was reported that the economy created 21,000 new jobs in February--21,000--none of them in the private sector, incidentally; zero private sector jobs were created. When Secretary Snow made this prediction of just over 2 million new jobs last fall, we would have needed an average of about 200,000 new jobs a month in order to meet his prediction. The performance has been so dismal, we have only averaged 59,000 new jobs per month over the last 2 months. We have to produce jobs 444,000 a month from now until the third quarter of this year for Secretary Snow's prediction to be borne out. The economy is not creating these jobs. We face a real difficult jobs situation.

Mr. SARBANES. The last chart my colleague presented is an extremely important one because it shows the percent of long-term unemployed among the unemployed is at record levels, higher than it has been since 1984. In fact, close to 23 percent of the unemployed workers have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. It has been above 20 percent now for 17 consecutive months. For a year and a half, the percent of unemployed who are long-term unemployed is above 20 percent, which is an important benchmark. The last time we had a period that ran that long was 20 years ago. The Senator's chart showed exactly that. That was back in 1984. That is why this effort that has been repeatedly made on the floor of the Senate and in the committee just last week to address extending unemployment insurance benefits is so important. That effort has been turned back. I plead with my colleagues on the other side to move ahead on extending unemployment insurance benefits. We still have a serious labor market weakness. We have not recovered the jobs. It is not as though you could say a lot of job opportunities have opened up and people can go back to work. That has not happened in this instance. Long-term unemployment is at record levels. Nearly 2 million people have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. Twenty-six weeks is the period that the traditional unemployment benefits cover. In the past, we have always extended unemployment insurance benefits so people can meet the problem of providing for their families. We have actually provided more benefits in the past than we have in this recession. In the previous Bush administration, the program was extended and then extended again. We built up the unemployment insurance trust fund for this purpose: to fund these benefits when we encounter an economic downturn. There is over $15 billion in the unemployment insurance trust fund specifically collected for the purpose of paying unemployment insurance benefits in an economic downturn. I joined with my colleague in the committee the other day to offer an amendment to make a provision within the budget for extending unemployment insurance benefits. Regrettably, it was turned down on a straight party-line vote. I anticipate that amendment will be offered again on the floor, and I hope my colleagues will reflect upon it before that occasion arises. We need to do something. These are people who were working. You cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits unless you have a work record that entitles you to collect them. These are not, if you want to say, malingerers or people who don't want to work. These are people who had jobs. They lost their jobs through no fault of their own. If it is their fault, they cannot get unemployment insurance benefits. If they are to blame, if they have not performed on the job, they do not get unemployment insurance benefits. These are people who were working, in many instances had a long working career. They are out of a job. They are in a labor market where jobs are not being created, as my colleague dramatically illustrated with the chart he showed. How are they going to provide for their families? What are these responsible, hard-working Americans to do in terms of meeting the needs of their families? Yet we have been turned back on the effort to extend unemployment insurance benefits, and I very much hope when the issue comes before us that Members will reflect and agree we need to do something about this pressing problem. I will make a couple more points before I close. This fiscal situation of the United States in which we find ourselves and the magnitude of it has drawn very sharp comment from objective observers. Listen to what the IMF said only recently: U.S. Government finances have experienced a remarkable turnaround in recent years. Within only a few years, hard-won gains of the previous decade have been lost, and instead of budget surpluses, deficits are again projected as far as the eye can see. Let me repeat that. This is the IMF commenting about U.S. Government finances: Within only a few years, hard-won gains of the previous decade have been lost, and instead of budget surpluses, deficits are again projected as far as the eye can see. The President says he is going to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My colleague pointed out, I think with great perception, that was not in the cards. It is not sustained by the numbers. If we are going to have a debate, we cannot just play around with the numbers as though they do not mean anything. We have to have some hard facts upon which to work. These structural deficits that are built in this budget are extremely harmful to the economy as we move ahead--a promise to raise interest rates, reduce economic growth, decrease the number of jobs, increase our vulnerability to a sudden economic crisis. A responsible budget would not encompass a structural deficit, and if there is a structural budget deficit, a responsible budget would seek to correct the imbalance. I could go on at some length about the choices made within the budget with respect to what our priorities ought to be, but I make this fundamental point: In every instance, there is a choice. You do not make one decision, for instance, to cut taxes for very wealthy people which then results in a larger deficit and then turn around and say to educators who say, We cannot carry through on the No Child Left Behind legislation, that there is no funding to address your complaint. That complaint is coming from all over the country. Out in the Rocky Mountain States, we have educational officials telling us they cannot carry through on that program. They are making that point very forcefully. I was reading about it only today or yesterday in the paper. They said: We can't carry through on it. They are told, We can't carry through on it because we have this deficit to worry about. Why do we have the deficit to worry about? We have this big deficit because we are doing these big tax cuts for wealthy people. So the choice that was made in the President's budget was to do the tax cuts for the elite rather than fund the No Child Left Behind program. That was the choice. I think that is a bad choice. I think the country thinks it is a bad choice. But there is a need to understand when you put this budget together, whatever you do on the one hand has an impact on the other hand. You cannot avoid that. If you did not do these extensive tax cuts--which the President wants to make permanent--with those huge costs, the deficit would not run up; you would be able to hold the deficit down and do something about education and health care. But the President has put the Nation in an absolute deficit box.

Mr. SARBANES. The tax cut alone.

Mr. SARBANES. Does that chart mean if one-third of the tax cuts that are being proposed to be made permanent, if only one-third of them remain not made permanent, that would more than cover the shortfall in Social Security?

Mr. SARBANES. They are already talking about that around town. The other day, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve himself talked about cutting back on the benefits under Social Security. Here is what has happened. It needs to be understood. There is a direct connection. These large tax cuts that primarily benefit very wealthy people-- there is some benefit for others, no question. The chairman talked about that today, but in the total picture of where the benefits are going, that is a relatively small portion. Most of the benefits go right up to the top group in society by income and wealth. They say we are running deficits, so to cover the deficits they have to use up the Social Security surplus. Then they say to correct the using up of the Social Security surplus, we have to cut Social Security benefits. It must be understood, these things are linked. The reason they have the deficit which now says they must cut Social Security benefits is because they gave the very large tax cuts to the elite, producing the deficit, which resulted in drawing down the Social Security surplus which then leads them to say, we have to cut the Social Security benefits. These are choices. This administration has made a choice. The choice the administration has made is to put tax cuts for the elite ahead of sustaining Social Security benefits. That is the choice they have made. It needs to be understood. Does the Senator agree there is a direct connection in this regard?

Mr. SARBANES. There are other examples of this. I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee to fully fund the firefighter grant program. That amount is $900 million--not billions as we are talking here but just $900 million. Two years in a row, the Congress has appropriated $750 million. So we have not appropriated the fully authorized amount but we have gotten up fairly close to it at $750 million. The President's budget submitted to the Congress had $500 million. In other words, it cut the program by one-third, $250 million, from the level it had been for 2 successive fiscal years. These are grants that go out to firefighters across the country to try to enhance their professionalism, upgrade their equipment, better prepare them to deal with the threats we confront. One of the things we are very anxious to deal with is that one-third of all the firefighters in the country do not have the equipment, the breathing equipment to protect them in a serious fire, from smoke inhalation. That is one of the things we would like to take care of. Yet the President's budget proposed to the Congress cut the funding for this program by one-third. The President is now running political ads showing firefighters on 9/ 11 moving out of the wreckage, and there is a stretcher with a flag on it. We know what the firefighters did. We know the heroism they have shown. Every year, I go to the National Fallen Firefighters ceremony, which is held at the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial, which is in Emmitsburg, Maryland, the location of the U.S. Fire Academy. Families come from all over the country. There is a weekend of events and ceremonies to mark the memory and the heroism of fallen firefighters. The year after 9/11 we could not do it in Emmitsburg. There were too many people and so the ceremony was held at the MCI Center in Washington because the number jumped so tremendously as a consequence of those deaths in New York. In money terms, that is not a big item, but in its significance and in what it stands for, I think it is very substantial. We know our first responders place themselves at risk. They are the first called upon. There were firefighters going up the steps of the World Trade Center in an effort to rescue people when people in the building were coming down the steps in order to escape. In effect, they were placing themselves in further danger in order to save their fellow human beings. They did not know these people. They were all strangers to them but they were responding to their duty. It is extraordinary when we stop and think about it. The impact of it is obviously recognized by some of the President's people because they are putting it in this political ad. But I would like to see them take the program up to $900 million to do the firefighter grants so we could provide firefighters across the country with the protective equipment which they need as they carry out this very dangerous occupation. That would require only $400 million. The President's tax cuts provide $45 billion for the top 1 percent. Will the top 1 percent, those making over $337,000, who are getting an enormous--what is the tax return they are getting? Does the Senator have that figure in his mind, $120,000 or something?

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator enumerated the three concerns: a 10-year projection of the cost of the tax cut, the alternative minimum tax; the Senator mentioned the failure to reflect in the budget any cost for our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. I want to be clear on this point. Am I correct in understanding that the budget which the President sent to the Congress for the next fiscal year beginning on October 1 of this year, 2004--the budget he submitted to the Congress, the spending blueprint--has zero for the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan? Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. You see it runs along here like this. This is as far as the chairman's budget projects it, right to there. Then it stays on that line a little bit and then look what happens to it--it is incredible. It is the shooting star deficit, the way this thing is going.

Mr. SARBANES. That is right. Exactly.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by the able Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor. This amendment will extend the unemployment benefits which lapsed at the end of December--they have lapsed and are not available--and continue the program for 6 months, through the end of June. The program lapsed not because the fundamental economic problem which led to its creation--the very weak labor market--has been solved. That market's weakness remains a serious concern. Long-term unemployment--the problem for which this program was created--is near record levels. There are nearly 1.9 million unemployed workers in America who are long-term unemployed. That is, they have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. They constitute almost 23 percent of all unemployed workers. This level has been above 20 percent for the past 16 months, the longest stretch of long-term unemployment at this level in more than 20 years. It has been 34 months since the recession began. The economy has almost 2 percent fewer jobs than it had 34 months ago. Jobs are not being created in sufficient number to close this gap. Job creation is far below what is needed to improve the situation for unemployed workers. Some colleagues have argued that we do not need the program because we are no longer losing jobs. However, the job growth that the economy is producing is too slow to put back to work those who have lost their jobs. Of course, the administration predicted after they passed the 2003 tax cut, that by last month, the economy would have created over 2 million jobs. It created 300,000 jobs over that period. This amendment's proposal is not excessive by historical standards. In fact, the administration's refusal to act is what constitutes a break with historical precedent. Again and again in the past, we have extended unemployment insurance to provide some assistance to the long- term unemployed. Finally, let me simply make this point: We build up an unemployment trust fund in good times to fund the benefits when we have an economic downturn. There is over $15 billion in the unemployment insurance trust fund to pay unemployment insurance benefits. We have millions out there needing this help. This money was collected for that purpose. It should be used for that purpose. I strongly urge support of this amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Is the Senator controlling time?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I, too, will do everything I can to support funding in Michigan in conference.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this reauthorization of the highway and transit program is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will consider in this Congress. Its enactment will help restore the federal commitment to our surface transportation infrastructure--the lifeblood for our economy as well as our quality of life. Ensuring that our Nation has a modern, safe and efficient transportation network has been one of my highest priorities in the United States Senate. As ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over our nation's transit programs, and as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have fought vigorously to bolster federal investment in transportation infrastructure and to put in place a sensible, balanced framework in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to enable the nation to sustain its economic growth and enhance the quality of life of our citizens. The reauthorization bill, known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, or SAFETEA, that is before the Senate authorizes $318 billion in funding over the next six years for maintaining and improving our Nation's and States' highways, bridges and transit systems and addressing safety issues. 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. In my judgment, we must make prudent investments in our transportation systems not only to prevent further deterioration of the network--but to improve the system, relieve congestion and save lives. These investments will also boost our economy and create jobs--at a time when new jobs and a boost to the economy are desperately needed. The United States Chamber of Commerce has estimated that each $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,000 direct jobs and there are indirect impacts as well. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that in 2001, Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $69.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. 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. The investments made under this bill will help us make progress in our efforts to combat traffic congestion and deteriorating conditions on our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems. For our Nation's roadways and bridges, this legislation authorizes an average increase of nearly 36 percent in funding to enable states and localities to make desperately needed repairs and improvements. Maryland's share of highway funding will grow by 40 percent over the next 6 years compared to the level provided in TEA-21--more than a $1 billion increase to help upgrade our highway infrastructure. As a small ``bridge'' State with criss-crossing interstate routes, a State with high population density and with high traffic congestion, Maryland has tremendous highway infrastructure needs. Maryland is the fifth most densely populated State in the Nation. Maryland roads, including both State highways and other roads, now serve almost 54 billion vehicle miles of travel annually. Our State has the second largest urban interstate traffic density and the sixth largest percentage of roads in urban areas in the United States. As part of the northeast corridor Maryland experiences an extremely high volume of through traffic, especially on roadways such as I-95. Maryland is one of the few States in the Nation with two major metropolitan areas, Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, and two major beltways with some of the highest traffic volumes in the country--in excess of 150,000 average daily traffic--within 30 miles of each other. Our state has the sixth highest congestion cost in the nation, and these congestion costs continue to rise. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, from 2000 to 2001, the annual cost in Washington, DC is up from $631 to $667/year. In the Baltimore Region, the annual cost went up from nearly $400/year to $455/year. In the Washington metropolitan area we have the second longest average commute time in the Nation. In the next 20 years, 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 29 percent and this will mean significantly more traffic on our roads and pressures on our transit systems. Maryland's Department of Transportation is at a crossroads, 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 $13.2 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 non-attainment 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 legislation includes a provision 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. The stormwater provision will provide more than $73 million for the Bay States and local governments for stormwater abatement of which $15 million would be available for Maryland. For our Nation's transit systems, the legislation authorizes $56.5 million--$15.5 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 60 percent over the next 6 years from $572 million to $907 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 para-transit systems for elderly and disabled people throughout Maryland will also receive a big boost in funding. 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. I especially thank the staff of the Banking Committee for the fine work done on the transit title of the bill. First, I commend Chairman Shelby and his staff, including Sherry Little, Rich Steinmann, Peggy Kuhn, and of course, Doug Nappi and Kathy Casey. I also compliment my own staff, who did a superb job, providing needed additional resources to meet the transit needs of all Americans. My transit team was most ably led by Sarah Kline, and I also thank Aaron Klein, Charlie Stek, and Kate Mattice. Let me also acknowledge the major contribution made by the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation and the staff of Subcommittee Chairman Allard, Tewana Wilkerson, and Ranking Member Reed, Neil Campbell. 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 join in commemorating African-American History Month and in recognizing a crucial part of our diversity: the vast history and legacy that African Americans have contributed to the founding and building of our Nation. In 1915, Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson founded the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, which shortly after its creation, began a campaign to establish Negro History Week. In 1926, the second week of February was chosen to recognize the contributions of African Americans to American society. In 1976, this week of observance was expanded to a month and became African-American History Month. Each year, the Association, now known as the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, designates a theme for the Black History Month observance. This year's theme, ``Before Brown, Beyond Boundaries, Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka'' marks one of the most seminal moments in the fight for equal rights in this country--the Supreme Court's May 15, 1954 ruling that ``[i]n the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place.'' It was a ruling that was met with violent resistance and created enormous upheaval. A number of States adopted policies of ``massive resistance'' seeking to avert compliance with the Court's decision. Many went so far as to adopt resolutions calling for the State Government to interpose itself, parens patriae, between its citizens and the Federal government's efforts to impose desegregation. But in the years that followed Brown, inspired by the framework for progress that the Court had provided, our civil rights leaders and the movement they created never backed down. They instead redoubled their heroic efforts often in the face of great risk of personal harm. From the refusal by Rosa Parks to move to the back of a public bus, which ignited the Montgomery bus boycott, to efforts of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others to secure civil rights and desegregate public facilities, to efforts of the NAACP to clarify and expand the First amendment's protections related to free association, Brown's effects were felt across the Nation and beyond the sphere of public education. And, of course, Thurgood Marshall--who I should note was born in Baltimore and attended Frederick Douglass High School--was at the center of these efforts. After graduating at the top of his class at Howard Law School, Marshall came back to Baltimore and, after working with NAACP to accomplish the landmark result in Brown led the legal fight thereafter to extend its precedent throughout the civil rights arena. After leaving the NAACP, Marshall put his convictions, determination, and legal prowess to work as a Federal judge, then Solicitor General, and ultimately the first African-American Justice on the Supreme Court. There, he was, as Justice William Brennan remembered him, the ``voice of authority . . . the voice of reason . . . [a]nd a voice with an unwavering message: that the Constitution's protections must not be denied to anyone and that the Court must give its constitutional doctrine the scope and sensitivity needed to assure that result.'' At the beginning of the last century, our Nation was a vastly different place than it is today. The country was divided along racial lines and racism was accepted and institutionalized. African Americans were not allowed to vote, and the opportunities available to African Americans were few. Today, thanks to the visions of a few and the sacrifices of many--and in significant part thanks to the lasting effects of Brown--that situation has changed. After much hardship, African Americans have made great strides in many areas and now participate in every sector of our society. Throughout the past 100 years, African Americans have made remarkable contributions to the Nation and the world as mathematicians, scientists, novelists, poets, politicians, and members of the armed services. Through the lessons and struggles of the last century and the trying first few years of this century, Americans have shown the world how people of all races, colors, religions and nationalities create the fabric of our Nation, a fabric that is richer because of our differences. This month, we honor the special contribution African Americans have made to that fabric. But there is much work left to be done. When in 1981 the City of Baltimore unveiled a statue to Marshall, the Justice told the gathered crowd ``I just want to be sure that when you see this statue, you won't think that's the end of it. I won't have it that way. There's too much to be done.'' So we take the occasion of African-American History Month to celebrate the steps that we have taken toward equality, but also to remind ourselves of how far we have to go.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Mikulski, Warner, Akaka, Allen, Collins, Kennedy, Durbin, Dayton, Levin, Johnson, and Murray in submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that parity between Federal civilian pay and military pay should be maintained. Disparate treatment of civilian and military pay goes against the longstanding policy of parity for all those who have chosen to serve our Nation--whether that service is in the civilian workforce or in the armed services. In fact, a comparison of military and civilian pay increases by the Congressional Research Service finds that in 16 of the last 18 years military and civilian pay increases have been identical. Indeed, the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act Conference Report passed by Congress included a pay parity provision that would provide a 4.1 percent average pay adjustment to military and all civilian employees. Federal civilian and military employees work side-by-side doing the important work of the Nation, including protecting U.S. citizens from terrorism. As a prime example, during last week's response to the discovery of ricin in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, civilian employees from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Capitol Police, the FBI, and the Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response Force from Indian Head, Maryland responded jointly to the crisis and collaborated in the cleanup of the affected Senate Office Buildings. Now more than ever, an efficient and effective Federal Government requires this kind of civilian/military collaboration. We should not undermine the morale of our dedicated public civil servants by failing to bring their pay in line with that of the military personnel they work along side of every day. Moreover, both the uniformed services and the Federal civilian workforce need to address critical retention and recruitment problems. Our Federal Government is facing a ``human capital'' crisis as a result of attrition that threatens institutional experience and knowledge at every level. By the end of 2005, one out of every three current Federal workers will be eligible for optional retirement and by 2007 an estimated 53 percent of the Federal workforce will be eligible to retire. These vacancies will occur in an era in which those entering the workforce are far less likely to join public service. As evidence of this, a 2002 survey commissioned by the Partnership for Public Service reveals that only one in four college-educated workers expressed significant interest in working for the Federal Government. Inequitable pay only serves to perpetuate this lack of interest. Congress has continually asked Federal employees to make significant sacrifices for the sake of our Nation's fiscal health, including more than $200 billion in deficit reduction contributed by Federal employees and retirees in lost and delayed compensation. In addition, FEPCA-- legislation passed in 1990 to bring the pay of Federal employees in line with that offered in the private sector--has never been fully implemented. Nonetheless, Federal employees have continued to provide high quality service to the American public, usually with fewer resources and personnel. One way to ensure the Federal Government is able to attract and retain qualified public servants is to ensure parity between civil service employees and members of the uniformed services. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important resolution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished colleague from Alabama, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, in very strong support of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2004. First, let me express my appreciation to the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, who has worked assiduously on this legislation, reaching across the aisle in a most cooperative manner to develop a transit bill that will begin to address the urgent needs faced by communities all across the country. As a result of his efforts and those of other members of our committee on the transit bill, the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2004 was reported out of the Banking Committee yesterday morning with unanimous support. Every member of the committee supported this legislation. Let me also acknowledge the contributions made by Senator Allard of Colorado and Senator Reed of Rhode Island, the chairman and ranking member of our Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, who have worked with us step by step to develop the package that is being brought to the floor of the Senate. I also thank the distinguished leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords, as well as the leadership of the Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, with whom we have worked closely in order to address a number of important issues related to the financing of this bill. Without their help and the very committed work of the Senate leadership, Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle, I doubt that we could be where we are today. I think it is important to recognize the broad effort and the broad support that exists for this legislation. As we approached the expiration of the previous surface transportation bill, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, known as TEA-21, the Banking Committee and its Housing and Transportation Subcommittee held a series of hearings--some at the full committee level and some at the subcommittee level--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, which extended over roughly a 2- year period, 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, and transit riders--virtually all of the stakeholders in this important matter--and including economic development experts, a very important dimension of this, to which I will refer again shortly. Virtually all of the witnesses we heard agreed that the investment that had been made under TEA-21--in other words, the predecessor legislation to what we are now considering in the Senate--contributed to a renaissance for transit in this country. In fact, transit has experienced the highest percentage of ridership growth among all modes of surface transportation, growing almost 30 percent between 1993 and 2001. We also heard testimony about the other benefits of transit. 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 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 and has brought extraordinary leadership to this effort, pointed out that when one locality builds a rail system or develops its bus system, much of that construction or the assembly of those buses may well be done in a different jurisdiction. So one has to keep in mind when considering the economic benefits, it is not just the area that is upgrading the transit system that is getting the money, but that area in turn is spending its money on a whole range of supplies and services which take place elsewhere in the country. When Texas cities buy buses, for example, it may be a company in Colorado that is producing the buses. 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. There is a population out there, significant in number, whose mobility depends on transit systems. They do not have the alternative of the automobile. Several of our witnesses observed that the increased investment in transit and paratransit services under TEA-21, the previous legislation, provided the crucial link between home and a job, school, or a doctor's office, for millions of people who might not otherwise have been able to participate fully in the life of their community. Further, we saw after September 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. States that for a long time had no interest in transit now have a very keen interest in transit. I say to the Presiding Officer, the State of Nevada is developing major transit in the Las Vegas area, for example, and it is made necessary by the population explosion which has taken place in that State over recent decades. Small towns, rural areas, suburban jurisdictions, large cities, all are struggling to keep up with the need to provide safe and reliable transit service for their citizens. The Department of Transportation has estimated that nationally communities will need $14 billion per year in capital investment simply to maintain the condition and performance of their transit systems, let alone what is necessary to improve conditions and service. If we do not make this investment today, we will be left with deteriorating infrastructure and worsening congestion tomorrow and that, of course, would be a depressing influence on our economy and would undermine our economic strength and vitality. The legislation before the Senate authorizes $56.5 billion in transit investment over the next 6 years. This is the amount approved by the Senate during consideration of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution and represents a substantial increase over TEA-21. Most experts conclude it is not adequate to address all the transit needs of the Nation, but it does represent a significant step forward in our efforts to improve our citizens' mobility and strengthen our national economy through investments in our transportation infrastructure. The legislation maintains a feature of both ISTEA and TEA-21, the two previous surface transportation acts, namely, parity between the transit program and the highway program so that they will be able to move ahead in a parallel and comparable fashion. We are appreciative of our colleagues on other committees for recognizing the importance of that proposition. Moreover, the legislation maintains the existing 80% Federal match on new starts transit projects. Again, that maintains the parallelism that has existed between highways and transit so that the decision being made at the local level is not weighted in one direction or the other because of the match that is required in order to move forward with the transportation infrastructure. Mayor McCrory of Charlotte, North Carolina, made this point at 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 proposal brought forward by Chairman Shelby 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 increases 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 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 allow communities to address their growing needs with transit investment and gain the benefits of transit that exist elsewhere in the country. 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 a few projects of this type currently operating 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. So there is an effort in this legislation to recognize the various types of transit needs across the Nation. Of course, as you do any formula, no one gets as much as they would like to get, but you work within certain constraints. 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. We have a new growth and density formula in this legislation. We make some changes in the fixed guideway program to give a little more discretion for smaller projects. But, all in all, I think this is a balanced package. I commend it to my colleagues, and of course I am happy to discuss with any of them any questions they may have. I want to highlight just a few more of the bill's provisions. The bill includes a requirement that metropolitan planning organizations develop 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 in a broader sense, work day to day. That is why this is such a critical and important piece of legislation. 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, and it has had very strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It is an effort to address the problem, made manifest in certain of our Western national parks, of the overcrowding that has come with increased visitation. You have people who wait in line all day long to get into Yosemite, for example. They get to the entrance and they cannot get in, because the park's roads and parking lots are at capacity. It is a very serious problem. 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. I also want to note that the bill makes a number of modifications to section 5333(b), known as section 13(c), the transit employee labor protections. These provisions were the result of extended discussions between the transit labor unions and members of the committee who were concerned about the impact of 13(c) on the transit program. I note that section 13(c) has been a part of every transit bill since 1964, providing crucial collective bargaining and job right protections. It has served to unify a broad coalition of transit industry and employee representatives to form a unique partnership which has worked together to expand the Federal transit program to what it is today: an unequivocal success. I want to mention one modification which addresses the concerns of members regarding issues arising when one private contractor replaces another private contractor through competitive bidding. Such rights were addressed in the Department of Labor's Las Vegas decision dated September 21, 1994, as amplified by letter dated November 7, 1994. This legislation includes language in section 13(c) to ensure that the Department of Labor's decisions involving so-called ``contractor to contractor rights'' are governed by the standards set forth in the Department's Las Vegas rulings, without otherwise affecting employee rights under section 13(c). In addition, I note that the changes to section 13(c) are not intended to impact the level of protections covering freight rail employees existing on the date immediately preceding enactment of this act. 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. For example, while the bill enhances the role of private-sector transit providers in several ways, it was not intended to change the long-standing congressional policy that decisions involving the choice between public and private transit operators should be left to local authorities who are better equipped to make local transportation decisions, and the Federal Government should remain neutral with respect to such local decision-making. In addition, while the definition of public transportation is modified slightly in the bill, the intent is to clarify, rather than change, the universe of modes and services encompassed by that definition. And as I indicated earlier, some of the changes with respect to the formula seek to be sensitive to ensuring that all parts of the country can participate in the transit programs. But we have tried to essentially maintain most of the previous arrangements which have worked so successfully. I conclude by saying that this amendment 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. That is why the bill is strongly supported by a number of associations representing local officials, transit providers, environmental groups, and others. In a letter received by the committee yesterday, the American Public Transportation Association stated: We support your commitment to retain the overall structure of the federal transit program and the decision to increase federal investment in transit infrastructure. This increased investment will not only improve and modernize the nation's transportation system, but it will also create and sustain millions of badly needed jobs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter, along with other letters of support, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will close by saying, as these letters demonstrate, the legislation we are considering today is vitally important to keep America moving forward in the 21st century. It is no exaggeration to say this is essential legislation for the future strength and vitality of our economy and of our society. I very strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation that has been brought forward from the Banking Committee, as I said, on a unanimous vote in a markup yesterday morning. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Community Transportation Association, February 5, 2004. Hon. Richard Shelby, Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Shelby and Sarbanes: We'd like to take this opportunity on behalf of our more than 7,000 members providing community and public transportation services around the nation, as well as the millions of Americans who rely on these services every day, to commend you for your leadership in the creation of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2004. This groundbreaking legislation builds the kind of 21st century transportation network our nation needs. We're pleased that it recognizes the real character of public transportation and invests in transit for communities of all sizes and locations. At long last, this bill begins to adequately address the transportation needs of rural Americans and of senior citizens. Much of the success we've enjoyed in the past six years in community and public transportation was based upon the innovative guarantees and protections for transit financing made by the federal government in TEA-21. Continuing these guarantees in this important legislation is essential. There's an old proverb that says the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This bill is a giant step toward building the foundation for America's transportation future. We're grateful. Thank you on behalf of our members, and on behalf of the American people. Sincerely, Dale J. Marsico, CCTM, Executive Director.