Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I simply make the observation that the offering of this amendment by the Senators from Wyoming and Ohio clearly admits and sends the signal that the OMB circular issued on May 29 was grossly deficient. Now, they are addressing it in certain limited respects. And to the extent that is the case, so be it. But it does not really solve the basic problem which we confront, and that is that OMB handed down this circular which grossly tilts the playing field and which structures an unfair competition. It seems to me the best way to resolve this situation is to adopt the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, which in effect would hold the May 29 OMB circular. We could then revisit this question and address the range of the deficiencies that are in that circular. My own view is, if people of good will undertake that enterprise, we will be able, I hope, to reach a consensus and have a better product as a consequence. I think this is, in a sense, elemental fairness for the Federal employee and for the Federal taxpayer. This issue is always portrayed as though contracting out to the private sector is beneficial to the Federal taxpayer. That is clearly not the case. In fact, there has been instance after instance in which Federal employees win competitions, therefore validating the argument that they are better for the taxpayer than putting it out into the private sector. Now, OMB, because it is not meeting its targets--these ideological targets that have been placed upon them, which they in turn are imposing upon the agencies because they cannot get the outcome they seek--has come in with a new circular, of May 29, which tilts the playing field in an unfair way. That really cries out for the passage of the very well considered amendment of my colleague from Maryland. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I am a cosponsor of the Mikulski-Landrieu amendment, and I say to my colleague from Wyoming, before he leaves, the more I listened to him, the more committed I became to this amendment. In fact, with each passing minute as he spoke, I was increasingly strengthened in my view that it is the right and honorable thing to support this amendment and to urge my colleagues to support it. I will outline why that is the case. Before I do that, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that a number of members of that panel disagree with the OMB circular of May 29, and if that is the case, I don't see how the Senator can be using this panel as supportive of the OMB circular. The Senator mentioned this panel that was studying it and he went through the membership of the panel. He emphasized how diverse it was in terms of where it drew people from. But it is my understanding that the OMB circular does not reflect the position of a number of members of the panel. Is the Senator asserting to the contrary?

Mr. SARBANES. I listened very carefully to my distinguished colleague from Ohio. I don't gainsay his concern about the Federal workers. I accept his assertion in that regard, and it has been my own experience in dealing with him in the past. I was concerned about one thing when he listed the members of this Commission. He talked about this very diverse Commission, but it is my understanding that Commission, when it made its recommendations, had unanimity with respect to some and differences of opinion with respect to others. In any event, the OMB circular issued on May 29, the matter that is at issue here with the Mikulski-Landrieu amendment, does not track the recommendations of the Commission. In other words, it departs from it in significant respects, and much of the problem we are talking about is a consequence of that departure. What we have before us is not something that has been worked out and a consensus has developed, although we had a broad group that went into the deliberations and it doesn't reflect a consensus in the Congress. Witness, the vote in the House of Representatives where a majority of the House of Representatives supported the House version of the Mikulski amendment. So there is no consensus on that score. All this amendment would do would be to say: No, we are not going to let the OMB hand down these revisions, this new circular, to rewrite the rules in this way. We will put that on hold, and we will go back and look again at this issue to see if we can't come up with a solution which commands a consensus. I feel very strongly that is the way we should seek to deal with this matter. This isn't repealing competitive sourcing. All it is saying is that this OMB circular, which was put into place a few months ago and which many very strongly feel does not give you a level playing field or fair competition, that is going to be put on hold and provide us an opportunity then to revisit this issue in a more careful, balanced, and judicious way, and out of that process hopefully come up with a consensus. I think that is a reasonable way to proceed in the circumstance. It doesn't nullify or vitiate the competitive sourcing approach. It only seeks to assure that it will be done in a fair, balanced, level playing field way. I think that is an important objective to achieve, and it is not reflected in the May 29 OMB circular.

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator from Wyoming spoke as though the amendment is going to repeal public-private competition sourcing. My colleague talked about what was done in 2001 and the competitions that have taken place since that date. So, as one listened to him, one was thinking: Well, is this whole competitive arrangement going to be stopped in its tracks? Nothing could be further from the truth. What this amendment seeks to do is to stop an OMB revision, of last May 29, with respect to the terms on which these competitions are going to take place. That is all it does. When I was first listening to the Senator from Wyoming, I thought to myself: Well, surely we would meet what seems to be his concern if we just went back to the system that prevailed before the OMB revision. But then, at the end, he became clear and said, no, he wants those revisions as well. That is what I am very much opposed to. This amendment seeks to ensure the Government work is allocated in a fair and equitable manner. I believe it would provide the American taxpayers with the best value for Government services and for their tax dollars. Often--in fact, federal employees win most of these competitions. There seems to be a premise on the part of the Senator from Wyoming that savings is most often achieved when work goes to the private sector. That is not the case. What has happened is the OMB is driving an ideological agenda. It has rewritten the rules governing competitive sourcing, which, I think, in effect, jeopardizes fair competition, jeopardizes getting the best value for Government services, and jeopardizes the taxpayers' dollars. Earlier this year, the Office of Management and Budget, on May 29, issued a new circular, a new ruling that rewrote the rules by which this competition takes place. The concept of public-private competitions or competitive sourcing is not new, but the manner in which it is to be conducted is drastically altered by the rules of May 29 put forward by OMB. The new process established by OMB unfairly favors private sector contractors over Federal employees, opens highly specialized Government jobs to the lowest bidder, imposes arbitrary quotas and deadlines on Government agencies, and, I think, lead, in fact, leads to a waste of Government money rather than saving Government money. We all seek to make the Federal Government more cost effective and efficient. However, to achieve these goals, there are certain tests which should be met. First, we need to demonstrate with certainty that cost savings are achieved through the outsourcing of work to the private sector. No effective method has been put in place for oversight of the private contractors doing work for the Federal Government. This is most apparent at the Department of Defense where competitive sourcing has been most prevalent. It is my understanding that DOD cannot fully account for how many contract workers they currently employ or the cost to the American taxpayers for the work they do. Second, we must ensure that Federal employees are given the opportunity to compete on fair terms. Often, in these public-private competitions Government employees can be placed at a distinct disadvantage by making proprietary information about the Government bid available to their commercial competitors at a time when that information can be used to unfairly enhance the commercial offering. Government employees are not offered the same opportunity to enhance their bids. There is a great temptation that with this access to proprietary information for the commercial bidder to lowball their bid to win the contract, and then increase prices once the competition is eliminated. Unfortunately, because there is so little Government oversight of contractors, it is difficult to assess the costs of contractor work. When contract costs escalate, it is difficult to fix the problem. Thirdly, I am concerned that many highly specialized Government jobs will be let out to the private sector without proper consideration of qualitative factors. I believe many of these positions are inherently governmental and should not be awarded to the lowest bidder. The Senator from Wyoming, in effect, dismissed concrete examples offered by my colleague with respect to the problems. But how do we understand this issue if we do not focus on concrete examples? At NIH, competitive sourcing, it has been asserted to us, threatens not only the critical scientific work conducted there but also the security of the installation itself. NIH scientists have testified before a joint House-Senate hearing that they believe competitive sourcing has created a wave of unnecessary anxiety and bureaucratic duplication, and that the implementation of the initiative at NIH was not well thought out. Additionally, the administration rejected a request by NIH officials to exempt the fire department from competitive sourcing. Because the nature of the work done at NIH often involves hazardous materials, the Federal firefighters assigned to NIH have specialized training in the handling of chemical, biological, and radiological events. This kind of expertise cannot be matched in the private sector, and losing this asset would certainly be to the detriment of NIH's mission. Yet the administration refused to classify the firefighters as core public employees who would not be privatized. I want to add another dimension to this consideration as one of the largest employers in the country, the Federal Government should serve as a model for other businesses. In recent years, we have made great strides in extending employment to disadvantaged groups. I believe the Government must lead by example in this area. At Bethesda National Naval Medical Hospital, competitive sourcing threatens the jobs of mentally challenged workers who perform important services in the hospital's scullery. My very able colleague from Maryland outlined this situation. To counter what I thought was a very powerful statement of this point, the Senator from Wyoming sort of dismissed it as, quote, an emotional argument. Is it an emotional argument to register the fact that the National Naval Medical Hospital is seeking to provide some dignity and self- respect for mentally challenged workers to do these basic, virtually custodial, services in the hospital's scullery? This employment enables these individuals to lead independent lives. There is no accounting for that in this OMB circular. These are real examples. These are real people. This problem ought not to be dismissed. It is one of the consequences of the revision of this OMB circular. The House has passed its version of the Mikulski amendment by a vote of 220 to 198. Obviously, when it was considered by our colleagues on the other side, they saw merit in it. Furthermore, this proposal from OMB artificially inflates the cost of the Federal employees' bid by arbitrarily assuming a 12-percent overhead as part of the bid. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense has said the 12-percent overcharge arbitrarily placed on all in-house bids is insupportable and that either a new overhead rate must be established or an alternative methodology must be devised to allow overhead to be calculated on a competition-specific basis. If we are to have this competition--and we have had it, as the Senator from Wyoming pointed out when he went back in earlier references, for some period of time--it needs to be on a fair basis. You need to make sure the playing field has not been tilted. The regulations of May 29 tilted the playing field unfairly, not only to the disadvantage of the Federal worker but to the disadvantage of the Federal taxpayer. It needs to be understood that if the rules of competition are not fair, the awarding of the work to the private contractor may cost the taxpayer more money with a less quality product. That is what is at issue here. This amendment doesn't stop the competitive sourcing process. It only stops the revised regulations, the radical revised regulations that were put into place on May 29 and which have tilted the playing field, have moved away from a fair process, and resulted in a bad deal for the American taxpayers. We need to have an even playing field. We need to make sure the rules of competition are fair. This amendment is designed to accomplish that, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will seek the floor on my own accord, if the Senator is finished.

Mr. SARBANES. I certainly yield to the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Is my colleague asserting that the members of the panel supported or support the OMB circular of May 29?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the work of the Hous- ing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, MD. Today, the Housing Opportunities Commission is celebrating the 10th anniversary of its Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program, which helps low-income families with section 8 housing vouchers or living in public housing meet their educational and employment goals. The Housing Opportunities Commission has established a wonderful program that provides resources to low-income families to help them find and retain employment along with the opportunity for families to put away savings. These savings allow families to pay for educational opportunities, transportation or even the purchase of a home. While many housing authorities operate Family Self Sufficiency programs, I believe that the Housing Opportunities Commission has done an extraordinary job of helping its residents achieve economic independence. In the 10 years that the Commission has operated the Family Self Sufficiency program, almost 350 people have graduated and are well on their way to financial independence. These families faced significant barriers to gaining employment--33 percent were on welfare or were unemployed, many had no high school degree and 95 percent are single parents. Despite these obstacles, all 347 graduates have been able to retain stable employment, and 25 percent of the FSS graduates have purchased their own homes, a remarkable achievement. The Housing Opportunities Commission, HOC, has been committed to this important program for 10 years. By providing intensive case management, opportunities for education and job training and assistance in finding and paying for child care, HOC has ensured that the families enrolled in FSS can make the transition from welfare to work a successful one. In addition to working to better the lives of Montgomery County residents, the Housing Opportunities Commission has been a strong advocate for the program, helping me and others in Congress fight to continue and even expand the FSS program. In 1998, my colleagues and I fought to keep this program and thankfully, we were able to strengthen it by requiring that certain increases in income were disregarded for purposes of determining the amount of rent a family pays. Families who take part in FSS and increase their incomes are able to save money in an escrow account instead of paying more in rent. This is a great encouragement for families to find better employment, and it ensures that funds are available when necessary for emergencies. In addition, last year, I introduced legislation which would expand the program so that families living in project-based section 8 developments could also benefit from a housing agency's self-sufficiency programs. The Family Self Sufficiency program is one that changes lives for the better, and that is evident when looking at this year's participants in HOC's program. This year, 36 new families will graduate from the FSS program in Montgomery County, and I want to recognize the work that they have done to become self-sufficient. Ninety-two percent of these graduates have participated in education and/or job training courses and seven graduates have become homeowners. These individuals are not only better positioned to participate in the job market, but they are providing stability for their families and models for their communities. The staff at HOC and the graduates of the FSS program, present, past, and future, are to be commended for their efforts.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, this is a very important item. We do this provision, we set out all these numbers--

Mr. SARBANES. We link the numbers with particular activities, and then, when you go over and look at the next page, and look at the fine print, you discover the President can reallocate the funds provided under this heading. This is giving the President $20,304,000,000 in effect to do as he pleases, without reference to the money figures that are set out. We may argue about how much should be appropriated and what it should be appropriated for, but there ought not to be any argument it is the Congress that is to determine what the appropriations are to be and what the money is going to go for. To simply hand over $20 billion, and then have a clause that enables the President to use it for any of these purposes he chooses is to completely abdicate the congressional responsibility and the power of the purse.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. No. Mr. President, does the time then come back to the Senator from Indiana?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will defer until the Senator concludes, and then I will seek to have an exchange with the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Indiana yield for a question? Does the Senator have control of the time?

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

Mr. SARBANES. I want to make sure, as I understand the Senator's amendment, $10 billion of this $87 billion which he proposes as a loan on the reconstruction side, under the very terms of his amendment would be forgiven if 90 percent of Iraq's outstanding debt were forgiven by other countries; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. I want to commend the Senator for the wisdom of his amendment. If we do not adopt this amendment, the United States presumably will go to a debtors conference trying to persuade people that they should forgive the debt to Iraq. If your amendment passes, the United States is in a position at that debtors conference to say: If you will forgive your debt, we will forgive this debt. In fact, the amendment, by its terms, would require that. If we make it all a grant, we will go to the debtors conference and we will say to them: We made a grant. Now you should forgive your debt. They are going to say: Well, that is over and done with. That is water over the dam. That grant has happened. What do you have to give us here at this conference? So presumably at that point, we are going to come up with another chunk of money, would that be correct?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Warner, which seeks to address the damages at Department of Defense installations in those States impacted by Hurricane Isabel. The State of Maryland was particularly hard hit by Hurricane Isabel and the strong winds and flooding that accompanied it. Entire communities were submerged, power was lost in some areas for a week and countless individuals sustained damage to their homes, businesses and property. A number of Maryland's military facilities were similarly affected. Perhaps the hardest hit was the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis which suffered approximately $39 million in damage. Several weeks ago, I met with the Academy's Superintendent, Vice Admiral Rodney Rempt, who shared with me photographs of the destruction brought on by the hurricane. Hurricane-related swelling of the Chesapeake Bay, the Severn River and the Annapolis Harbor resulted in the flooding of academic buildings and laboratories, the submerging of athletic fields and the destruction of electrical systems. Our future Naval officers are now forced to take classes wherever they can be offered in the chapel, on a Navy barge, in administrative offices. Hurricane destruction was not limited to Annapolis alone. Officials at the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground, Patuxent River Naval Air Station and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division, among others, also report significant amounts totaling in the millions of dollars to repair roofs and buildings, replace piers, and clean up debris related to the storms. As you know, Operation and Maintenance funding at our bases is routinely among the most thinly stretched. And that is in years without a major natural disaster. This amendment provides $500 million to cover the much-needed cost of repair at facilities along the East Coast facilities whose continued operation are vital to our national defense. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting its passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I support the conference report to the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act or Check 21 Act. This is an important piece of legislation and a high priority for the Federal Reserve Board. I commend Chairman Shelby for his leadership on this issue. Senators Johnson, Carper, Miller and Bennett also played important roles in developing this legislation. The Check 21 Act enjoys broad bipartisan support. the conference report passed the House of Representatives unanimously on October 9th. Earlier this year both Houses of Congress passed similar bills by unanimous vote. This legislation is designed to allow banks to use electronic images of checks to expedite check collection and processing. Current law requires a bank that receives a deposited check to physically return the check to the issuing bank unless there is an agreement to provide for alternative presentment. It is important to note that there is no current legal requirement that an issuing bank return the original check to its customer. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent closure of air traffic by the Federal Aviation Administration exposed a serious weakness in our financial system. The inability of banks to send physical checks for presentment and payment for several days prevented the clearing of close to $50 billion in transactions. This crisis required the Federal Reserve to use extraordinary efforts to prevent a serious disruption in our financial markets. Under the Check 21 Act, banks will no longer be required to physically transport checks across the nation. Instead, they will be allowed to electronically scan the front and back of each check, create an encrypted, electronic image of each check, and then transmit the images rapidly from one area of the country to another. Consumers who wish to receive copies of their checks for record keeping purposes or who are investigating bank errors or possible fraud may receive printed copies of these electronic images. According to the Federal bank regulatory agencies, they have received few, if any, complaints from bank consumers who currently do not have their original checks returned with their monthly statements and use imaged copies of checks to dispute payments. Moreover, the Check 21 Act will not alter present law requiring banks to maintain copies of checks for seven years. The widespread adoption of check truncation and electronic imaging will reduce the dependence of the check processing system on transportation and will increase the resiliency of the financial system to terrorist attacks or other unforeseen events. In addition, the banking industry has indicated that the legislation has the potential to make deposited funds available to the consumer more quickly. With increased efficiency through electronic check transmission, banks have also indicated that they will be able to reduce processing time and may be able to more quickly identify check fraud and bank errors. Moreover, in certain cases where a consumer's account is improperly charged, the legislation provides for expedited recrediting of the account. Important consumer protections were maintained during the development of this check truncation legislation in the Senate. I appreciate Chairman Shelby's responsiveness to many of my concerns regarding consumer protections and ensuring that consumers enjoy some of the benefits of the legislation. I am also pleased that the House Conferees agreed to incorporate the Senate's consumer protection provisions in the Conference Report. First, the conference report contains statutory language clarifying that the comparative negligence language in the bill is not intended to reduce the rights of consumers under the Uniform Commercial Code or other applicable state or federal law. The report language in the Senate bill further clarifies that in the absence of fraud or bad faith, the comparative negligence provisions would generally not be applicable to consumer check users. Second, the Check 21 Act establishes, for the first time, the right of expedited recredit for improper check charges to a consumer's bank account. Pursuant to Section 7 of the legislation, certain consumers are given a right to expedited recredit within 10 days for the amount of a substitute check--under $2,500--that is improperly charged to the consumer's account. Current check law does not mandate a time frame for resolving consumer complaints. A consumer will have 40 days to make a claim after the financial institution mails the periodic statement or makes the substitute check available. Under extenuating circumstances, the financial institution must extend the period for filing a claim by a reasonable amount of time. Section 7 states that the time for action begins when the financial institutions mails or delivers, by any means agreed to by the consumer, the periodic statement, or the date on which the substitute check is made available to the consumer and Section 12 permits notices to be sent to a consumer by any means agreed to by the consumer. However, this Act does not address how the agreement referred to in sections 7 or 12 may occur. That topic is covered by the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. Third, the conference report contains a Federal Reserve study on the appropriateness of the time frame and monetary threshold for expedited funds availability. This provision requires the Fed to re-evaluate current practices and may lead to the reduction in the amount of time a bank may hold a deposited check before making the funds available to the consumer. Lastly, the conference report contains a General Accounting Office study to evaluate an assessment of consumer acceptance of the check truncation process, including whether consumers who were receiving returned checks prior to the enactment of this legislation incurred any new costs; and estimate of the gains in efficiencies made possible by this Act; and a determination of consumers' share of total benefits derived from this Act. I also want to take a moment to recognize those members of the Banking Committee staff who devoted so many hours to crafting this important and comprehensive legislation. On my staff: Patience Singleton and Aaron Klein and on the staff of Chairman Shelby: Peggy Kuhn and Doug Nappi. I look forward to monitoring the implementation of the Check 21 act by the Federal Reserve and the banking industry to ensure that consumers benefit from this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to pick up on a point that the Senator from South Dakota just made, and that is the question of sacrifice. The people in this country who are making sacrifices in this war in Iraq are the working people and the men and women in our armed services. The men and women who are losing their lives and suffering casualties come overwhelmingly from working families in America. Overwhelmingly they are the ones who are unable to meet their families' needs, and their own needs, because our national priorities have disastrously changed and the impact has fallen on particularly crucial programs: education, health care, job training--you can go right down the list. The deficits we are running, the huge national debt that is being run up will come down on the shoulders of working families in this country. If you want to talk about sacrifice, pass the Biden amendment. It is time for the privileged in this country to make sacrifices, too. It is not their men and women who are in Iraq. It is not their programs that are being hit. They are not shouldering the debt. They, too, should be making a sacrifice on behalf of this national effort.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2003. The Defense Production Act provides the President with important authorities to ensure the availability of industrial resources to meet national security needs and to deal with domestic civil emergencies. This is obviously a period in which the authorities of the DPA are being actively utilized. The DPA expires today, September 30. The Administration has made clear that the reauthorization of the DPA is a high priority. The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs marked up and reported out this bill last week by unanimous consent. The House Financial Services Committee, our counterpart Committee, has also reported out a reauthorization of the DPA that is pending on the House floor. Both bills are essentially simple extensions of the DPA with minor changes requested by the Administration. The imminent expiration of the authorities of the DPA led the staff of the two committees to meet last week to reconcile the few differences between the two bills. That has been accomplished, and Senator Shelby and I will shortly offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting that agreement. Both bills contained provisions requested by the Administration to correct the industrial resource shortfall for radiation-hardened electronics, and to clarify the President's authority under the DPA to obtain information in order to perform industry studies assessing the capabilities of the United States industrial base to support the national defense. The Senate bill also contained a provision sponsored by Senator Bennett, which makes explicit that the authorities of the DPA can be used to protect and restore critical infrastructure. This authority takes on a heightened sense of importance in the aftermath of 9/11, and is retained in the substitute amendment with the strong support of the Administration. The Senate bill provides for a 5 year authorization, as requested by the Administration, and the House bill provides for a 4 year authorization. Senator Dodd has raised a concern about the need to address the issue of offsets, which falls under the authority of the DPA. As a result, the substitute will provide for a 1 year authorization. This is essentially the package. I would like to commend Chairman Shelby and his staff for working cooperatively to bring this bill and the substitute amendment before the Senate today. I hope the Senate can act promptly to pass this legislation and send it over to the House. I believe the House will then be in a position to take up the Senate bill, pass it, and send it to the White House for the President's signature. That would ensure the continued availability of the important authorities of the Defense Production Act.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in supporting the pending legislation. This 5-month extension of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, preserves the basic structure of our Federal surface transportation programs, which have proven to be extremely beneficial for our citizens' mobility and our national economy over the last 6 years. I want to focus for a moment on the Federal transit program, in which I have a particular interest as the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee. The Banking Committee and its Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, both last Congress and this Congress, have held a series of hearings on the contributions of the transit program to reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and improving our quality of life. The clear message of these hearings is that TEA-21 works. The guaranteed funding, the program structure, and the balanced approach to transportation planning encompassed within TEA-21 have 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 over 28 percent between 1993 and 2001. For this reason, I am pleased that this legislation preserves the structure and programs of TEA-21 for the next 5 months. While we are talking today about a short-term extension, I think we must take a moment to look toward the future. The transportation needs of this Nation are significant, as more and more communities find themselves confronting the problems of traffic congestion and delay. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in the year 2000, Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the Nation of $67.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. As these figures show, congestion has a real economic cost to this Nation, in addition to the psychological and social costs of spending hours each day sitting in traffic. It is clear to me that we will have to greatly increase Federal support for transportation to help local communities make the investments in infrastructure and system preservation that will keep America moving forward in the 21st century. 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 our highways, bridges, and transit systems. Other estimates show an even greater need. I believe that failure to make the needed investment will result in the continued deterioration of our existing infrastructure. Moreover, investment in our transportation infrastructure has economic benefits as well. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, each $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs. At a time when our economy is struggling, investing in transportation is one of the smartest actions that Government can take. Increased investment creates jobs today and leads to economic growth tomorrow. For this reason, I am disappointed that the administration has not yet come forward with the resources we will need to develop a full, 6 year reauthorization bill. The administration's reauthorization proposal, known as SAFETEA, provides only a minimal increase for the Federal highway program, and in fact would cut that program in fiscal year 2004 from its fiscal year 2003 level. For transit, SAFETEA not only fails to grow the program at the pace of inflation, it cuts guaranteed funding over the 6 year period, so that the guaranteed level in fiscal year 2009 is actually less than the program level today. Without a serious commitment from the administration to make the kind of investment needed, and strong bipartisan bicameral leadership in the Congress, it will be very difficult for us to reauthorize the surface transportation programs even when this short-term extension expires. Until that commitment is made, however, it is essential that our States and local communities be able to continue to operate and maintain our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems. I encourage the Department of Transportation to use the authority granted by this legislation to provide the needed assistance as expeditiously as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.