Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. A lunch break. Amendment No. 349

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate that very much. In light of the discussion that was earlier held, my own view is that we should have allowed more time to talk about the resolution with respect to Iraq straight out, without mixing it into the budget resolution problem. It is obviously the issue facing the country. I think Members wanted to address it, and I do not believe it ought to be truncated. But I understand the difficult position in which the able Senator from North Dakota, who has done such an excellent job in terms of his efforts on the budget resolution, now finds himself. So I will try to limit my time in that regard. I thank the ranking member for his courtesy. (The remarks of Mr. Sarbanes are printed in today's Record in the debate on S. Res. 95.)

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment offered by Senators Graham, Dorgan, Stabenow, and others that would increase funding in the budget resolution by $220 billion for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, providing a total of $620 billion for a comprehensive benefit. This amendment would also reduce the tax cut by nearly $400 billion and reduce the deficit by $250 billion. According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 38 percent of seniors and disabled Americans have no prescription drug coverage whatsoever. Instead of finding ways to help these individuals and improve access to care for those with coverage, President Bush has proposed pushing Medicare beneficiaries into private health plans as a means of receiving drug coverage. And the level of coverage that could be provided under this scenario is questionable. Given the history of the Medicare+Choice program, many of my colleagues and I are skeptical that such a proposal would be successful. Many private insurers have withdrawn from the Medicare program or severely limited service areas in recent years. Of those who have remained, many plans have decreased prescription drug benefits and other benefits so much so that they offer little or no advantage over the traditional Medicare fee-for- service program. It is unclear how the President's proposal will avoid similar problems. This amendment would increase funding in the budget resolution for a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program that is available to all beneficiaries. In addition, it specifies that prescription drugs should be provided on an equal basis with respect to benefit level regardless of whether beneficiaries remain in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program or enroll in a private plan like those proposed by the administration. This is consistent with the approach that the supporters of this amendment and I favor. We have been working toward legislation that would create an affordable, comprehensive, and voluntary Medicare drug benefit and lower costs for all Americans by increasing access to lower priced drugs. It is clear that even this additional funding would not completely meet the needs of Medicare beneficiaries. A recent Congressional Budget Office estimate suggests spending for prescription drugs by and on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries would total $1.84 trillion over the next 10-year period. However, this amendment moves us much closer to meeting the needs of Medicare beneficiaries while simultaneously reducing the deficit. Our Nation is facing serious challenges at home and abroad. And we know that challenging times often require sacrifice. We must ask ourselves who will bear the brunt of these sacrifices. Are we going to spread them evenly? Or will we force those who have worked hard to make the United States the great Nation that it is to carry an unnecessarily heavy load? I fail to see how it is appropriate, at this time, to pass a tax benefit that benefits the wealthiest Americans without providing adequate resources to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. Our older Americans and the disabled individuals who rely on Medicare deserve more than this budget resolution provides. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Graham-Dorgan-Stabenow amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. SARBANES. I was here this afternoon, in response to my colleague who raised that point. There was a very long list of people wishing to speak. There wasn't time to speak within the time that was allotted.

Mr. SARBANES. Do I understand correctly, from the exchange that just took place, immediately after this vote there will be an order to make statements with respect to the resolution that was passed just a short while ago?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I ask a question of the majority leader. In light of the statement Senator Conrad just made, would it not be possible to have, say, an hour, after this vote, for the making of statements on the resolution unrelated to taking time away from consideration of the budget? This is an important resolution. There are many Members who did not get a chance before the vote to make a statement. It seems to me a reasonable accommodation in light of what the ranking member of the committee has just stated.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield on that point, we are, obviously, on a track to complete this budget resolution. As I understood it, the 3 hours of debate from 2 to 5 before the vote on the resolution did not come out of the time on the budget; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield me a few minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. All I am suggesting is given there are some additional Members who wish to speak, that we have another hour after this vote unrelated to time on the budget resolution to discuss the support for our troops resolution.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which was jurisdiction over the Federal transit program, I am pleased to join in this effort with Chairman Shelby and Senator Jack Reed, ranking member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, as well as my colleagues on the Enviroment and Public Works Committee, Senators Bond, Reid, Inhofe, and Jeffords, and my other colleagues who support this important amendment. As has already been noted, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, known as TEA-21, will expire on September 30 of this year. This Congress will have the opportunity to craft legislation that will shape America's surface transportation system for the next decide and beyond. The decisions we make will be critically important to our Nation's future economic strength, the quality of our environment, and our national security. Therefore, as we consider this budget resolution, and engage in the debate about how best to use our limited Federal resources, I believe it is appropriate to take a few moments to consider what is contained in this budget resolution, what this amendment seeks to accomplish, and the importance of our surface transportation system for America's future. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us does not come close to making the necessary investment in surface transportation. Instead, the budget as written would actually cut the highway program next year, grow funding somewhat the following year, and then flat-line the program for the remainder of the authorization period. The budget's numbers for transit call for annual increases below the President's projected rate of inflation, not to mention the projected ridership growth. This budget calls for only $206 billion for highways and $46 billion for transit over the next 6 years, far less than what is needed. I am deeply concerned that this budget would move us backward, not forward, in our efforts to meet the mobility needs of the Nation. This amendment would grow these programs by $49 billion and $10.5 billion respectively over what is included in the budget resolution, increasing investment in our highway program to $255 billion over the next 6 years, and our transit program to $56.5 billion. By growing our investment, we will not only help to preserve and maintain the systems that we have in place, we will begin to make progress toward improvement. Further, by the end of the next reauthorization cycle, surface transportation investment will reach its goal of a 4 to 1 balance between highways and transit. This goal was established in TEA- 21, and this amendment reaffirms that decision. 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 the nation, in addition to the psychological and social costs of spending hours each day sitting in traffic. It is clear that we must increase the capacity of our transportation infrastructure to handle the growing demands for mobility of both people and goods to keep our economy moving. Investment in our transportation infrastructure has other 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. Let me take a few moments to focus on the transit program, which I have a particular interest in as the ranking member of the Banking Committee. During the last Congress, that Committee, along with the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, chaired by my colleague Senator Reed, held a series of eight hearings to begin laying the groundwork for the reauthorization. What those hearings clearly demonstrated is that investing in transportation, particularly public transportation, pays off in terms of economic, environmental, and mobility benefits for our nation. TEA-21's increased investment in transit stimulated a surge in transit ridership. As Federal Transit Administrator Jennifer Dorn testified last April: ``Transit has experienced the highest percentage of ridership growth among all modes of surface transportation, growing over 28 percent between 1993 and 2001.'' Of course, the benefits of TEA-21's investment are broader than increased ridership. The economic development impact of transit is becoming more and more apparent as new systems have come into service under TEA-21. For example, the Banking Committee heard testimony that over $1 billion has been invested in private development along Dallas's existing and future light rail lines, raising nearby property values and supporting thousands of jobs. We learned that BellSouth relocated almost ten thousand employees from scattered sites in suburban Atlanta to three downtown buildings near MARTA rail stations, in part because, in the words of BellSouth Vice President Herschel Abbott, commuting by transit ``saves employees time. It saves employees money. It saves wear and tear on the employees' spirit.'' And that has real returns for their employer. Transit is about more than our economic life; it is also about our quality of life. During the Committee's hearings, we heard a great deal about the importance of transit to our senior citizens, young people, the disabled, and others who rely on transit for their daily mobility needs. Several of our witnesses observed that the increased investment in transit and paratransit services under TEA-21 has provided the crucial link between home and a job, a school, or a doctor's office, for millions of people who might otherwise have been unable to participate fully in the life of their communities. And transit can be a lifetime in other ways as well, as we discovered on September 11, 2001. We heard testimony during our hearings about the efforts made by transit operators on that day to move thousands of people quickly and safely out of city centers. As more and more Americans are using public transportation, it is clear that transit must be a vital component of any city's evacuation plan. While September 11 showed the importance of transit in responding to an emergency, it also raised our awareness of the unique challenges transit faces in the safety and security area, as several witnesses discussed. Transit agencies are taking great pains to improve the security of their systems, but these efforts are not without cost. 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 be required to move America into the 21st century. The Department of Transportation has identified $14 billion per year in capital needs simply to maintain the conditions and performance of our transit systems--$20 billion is needed to improve conditions and performance. Other estimates show an even greater need. A report by the Nation's State transportation officials estimated that an annual investment of $19 billion is needed just to maintain our transit systems at their current levels, and $44 billion would be needed to improve conditions and performance. According to the same study, almost $100 billion is needed annually just to maintain the current condition of our nation's roads and bridges. Failure to make the needed investment will result in the continued deterioration of our existing infrastructure. As we debate the priorities of this Nation in the context of this Budget Resolution, I urge my colleagues to be mindful of a comment that Dr. Beverly Scott, then General Manager of the Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority, made before the Banking Committee on April 25, 2002, regarding the reauthorization of TEA-21. Dr. Scott said: ``As Americans, mobility is one of the greatest and most precious freedoms that we enjoy. This basic cornerstone of American life--who can or cannot get from place to place, how we plan and conduct our daily lives, the choices we make about what we do, and even more importantly, what we can do--are hanging in the balance.'' That is what is at stake here. This Congress will shape the future of transportation in American, which will have a very real impact on every one of our citizens. Passage of this amendment is essential if we are to keep America moving. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. SARBANES. It seems to me that this is a matter of such consequence.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, with the commencement of engagement by U.S. military forces in Iraq, we stand united in support of the men and women of our Armed Forces. These young men and women representing the best of America are entering into harm's way in a distant land. Whatever our differences on policy, we speak with one voice in supporting our troops. I have no doubt that our military forces will be successful, although we do not now know how quickly or at what cost. As do all Marylanders, indeed all Americans, I pray for the safety of our troops and join my colleagues in pledging to them our commitment for the necessary resources and support. These brave men and women and their families are in our thoughts and in our prayers. We wish them Godspeed, and their prompt and safe return to our shores. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. At most.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the amendment offered by Senators Murray and Kennedy to increase funds for the No Child Left Behind Act by $8.9 billion, fully funding this critical legislation. The amendment also includes $8.9 billion for deficit reduction. Both the education and deficit reduction funding are taken from the dividend tax cut. It is imperative that Congress sends a strong message in support of education that is accompanied by equally strong funding. The budget resolution we consider today fails to provide sufficient funding for education programs at all levels. Despite the Administration rhetoric that places great importance on improving educational opportunities for all Americans, President Bush's budget underfunds a variety of programs--early childhood education, elementary education, vocational education, and higher education--that are especially important to families given the weak economy. States are struggling with budget shortfalls, rising student enrollment, and an increasing number of students with limited English proficiency. At the same time, States are working to meet the new requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because I agreed with its principles--all public school children should be able to achieve and all schools should be held accountable when their students fail to do so. I believed the President when he said education would be a priority. But now we face a budget that does not make education a priority. Instead, we are asked to support a budget that somehow finds the money to provide a tax cut for the wealthiest individuals, but cannot do so for the education of our Nation's children. This budget provides only a 2 percent overall increase for education programs, and some increases such as those for both Title I and IDEA, are largely paid for with cuts to other valuable education programs. Funding for the No Child Left Behind Act is cut by $700 million below fiscal year 2003 levels. It shortchanges Title I funding by $5.8 billion below the authorized level. Title I could reach only 40 percent of eligible low-income children at this level. This budget also cuts funding for teacher quality programs, after school programs, and eliminates 46 education initiatives. The No Child Left Behind Act places a variety of new requirements on States and local school districts, including annual standardized testing and increased teacher certification. While we can expect our educators to do all within their power to improve our schools, we cannot expect this landmark legislation to be effective if they are not given the resources to implement these programs. If this amendment passes, over 2 million additional needy children will be served by Title I, after school opportunities would be extended to an additional 1.3 million latchkey kids, and 50,000 new teachers could become fully qualified. I find it unconscionable that we can consider a tax cut aimed at the wealthiest Americans while purporting to be unable to adequately fund education programs. Now is the time to move beyond the rhetoric and show teachers, parents and students that we are sincere in our efforts to help them. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Murray- Kennedy amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Presumably, then, if it is tomorrow afternoon, there would be added to the list other amendments that will be offered tomorrow morning, is that the procedure?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment introduced by Senator Boxer, which would strike the provisions contained in the pending Budget Resolution that would allow for the commencement of oil exploration and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. I am deeply concerned about the irreparable damage these actions would have on this unique and beautiful wilderness. A mere 6 days ago, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution commemorating the Centennial Anniversary of the Wildlife Refuge System, established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 with the designation of the Pelican Island Reservation on the eastern coast of Florida. According to last week's resolution, which I cosponsored, the Senate ``reaffirms its commitment to continued support for the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the conservation of our Nation's rich natural heritage.'' The language contained in the pending Budget Resolution, which would lead to the disturbance of one of the largest and most pristine components of the Wildlife Refuge System, not only falls far short of this reaffirmation, but explicitly breaks the commitment laid out by President Roosevelt a century ago. The principal mission of the Wildlife Refuge System, in President Roosevelt's own words, is ``keeping for our children's children as a priceless heritage, all of the delicate beauty of the lesser and burly majesty of the mightier forms of wildlife. . . .'' Moreover, Roosevelt declared that this mission is founded on the basic principle that ``wild beasts and birds are by right not the property merely of the people who are alive today, but the property of unborn generations, whose belongings we have no right to squander.'' The environmental damage we have seen throughout the country over the past 100 years has strengthened and reaffirmed President Roosevelt's wise foresight in preserving certain areas of beauty and natural significance for present and future generations. Proponents of drilling in ANWR have claimed that oil exploration activities on the Refuge's fragile coastal plain will result in virtually undetectable environmental impact. However, an extensive, congressionally mandated report released earlier this month by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science and Engineering makes clear that drilling in ANWR will result in significant damage to the region. According to the report, which examined the cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration and production on Alaska's North Slope over the past three decades, ``[r]oads, pads, pipelines, seismic-vehicle tracks, and transmission lines; air, ground, and vessel traffic; drilling activities; landfills, housing, processing facilities, and other industrial infrastructure have compromised wild-land and scenic values over large areas. . . .'' Moreover, ``climate changes during the past several decades on the North Slope have been unusually rapid,'' and ``noise from exploratory drilling and marine seismic exploration'' have disrupted migratory patterns and severely impeded reproductive rates of bowhead whales, caribou, native birds, and other species. In addition to the major environmental impact that would likely affect ANWR should it be opened for oil and gas exploration, the resulting energy supply would do little to address our growing energy needs. Indeed, ANWR represents only five percent of Alaska's North Slope the remaining ninety-five percent of the North Slope is currently open to oil and gas exploration and production. According to a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, the total amount of oil that could be harvested from ANWR would roughly equal the amount of oil consumed by Americans in a 6-month period. Finally, this relatively small supply of oil would do even less to address our immediate energy needs. A 2001 report published by the Congressional Research Service has estimated that American consumers would not begin to benefit from oil recovered from ANWR for at least 10 years. If we truly want to address the challenge of our country's overwhelming dependence on foreign oil, causing irreparable damage to an area of exquisite beauty in exchange for a small supply of oil and gas is not the manner in which we should proceed. It is my strongly- held belief that we must aggressively pursue sources of renewable energy, as well as turn our focus away from increased production, and toward greater conservation. Mr. President, attempts to open ANWR to oil and gas exploration are reckless and shortsighted. I urge my colleagues to honor President Theodore Roosevelt's vision by joining me in supporting Senator Boxer's amendment to preserve the integrity and beauty of ANWR.

Mr. SARBANES. Another $3 billion, that is right.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the chairman yield on that very point?

Mr. SARBANES. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing the Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2003. This measure is another important step forward in our efforts to make transit services more accessible and improve the quality of life for commuters throughout the Nation. All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 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, and the problem is growing. One way in which Federal, State, and local governments are responding to this problem is by promoting greater use of transit as a commuting option. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that last year, Americans took over 9.5 billion trips on transit, the highest level in more than 40 years. But we need to do more to encourage people to get out of their cars and onto public transportation. The Internal Revenue Code currently allows employers to provide a tax-free transit benefit to their employees. Under this ``Commuter Choice'' program, employers can set aside up to $100 per month of an employee's pre-tax income to pay for the cost of commuting by public transportation or vanpool. Alternatively, an employer can choose to offer the same amount as a tax-free benefit in addition to an employee's salary. This program is designed to encourage Americans to leave their cars behind when commuting to work. By all accounts, this program is working. In the Washington area, for example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority estimates that over 200,000 commuters take advantage of transit pass programs offered by their employers. That means fewer cars on our congested streets and highways. Employees of the federal government account for a large percentage of those benefitting from this program in the Washington area. Under an Executive Order, all Federal agencies in the National Capital Region, which includes Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, as well as several counties in Northern Virginia, are required to offer this transit benefit to their employees. The Commuter Choice program is now being used by an estimated 130,000 Washington-area Federal employees who are choosing to take transit to work. However, despite the success of the Commuter Choice program, our tax laws still reflect a bias toward driving. The Internal Revenue Code allows employers to offer a tax-free parking benefit to their employees of up to $190 per month. The striking disparity between the amount allowed for parking--$190 per month--and the amount allowed for transit--$100 per month--undermines our commitment to supporting public transportation use. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would address this discrepancy by raising the maximum monthly transit benefit to $190, equal to the parking benefit, and providing that the benefits will be adjusted upward together in future years. The Federal Government should not reward those who drive to work more richly than those who take public transportation. Indeed, since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Federal transportation policy has endeavored to create a level playing field between highways and transit, favoring neither mode above the other. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would ensure that our tax laws reflect this balanced approach. In addition, the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remedy another inconsistency in current law. Private-sector employers can offer their employees the transit benefit in tandem with the parking benefit, to help employees pay for the costs of parking at transit facilities, commuter rail stations, or other locations which serve public transportation or vanpool commuters. However, under current law, Federal agencies cannot offer a parking benefit to their employees who use park-and-ride lots or other remote parking locations. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remove this restriction, allowing Federal employees access to the same benefits enjoyed by their private-sector counterparts. The Washington Metropolitan Region is home to thousands of Federal employees. It is also one of the Nation's most highly congested areas, ranking fourth in per capita congestion. This area has the third longest average commute time in the country. It is clearly in our interest to support programs which encourage Federal employees to make greater use of public transportation for their commuting needs. The simple change made by the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would provide a significant benefit to those Federal employees whose commute to work includes parking at a transit facility. For example, a commuter who rides the Metrorail to work and parks at the Rockville park-and- ride lot pays about $45 monthly for parking, on top of the cost of riding the train. A private-sector employee whose employer provides the parking benefit in addition to salary could receive $540 a year tax free to help pay these parking costs. Federal government employees should be allowed the same benefit. I support the Commuter Benefits Equity Act because it creates parity--parity in the tax code between the parking and transit benefits, and parity for Federal employees with their private-sector counterparts. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by supporting public transportation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Commuter Benefits Equity Act.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing the Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2003. This measure is another important step forward in our efforts to make transit services more accessible and improve the quality of life for commuters throughout the Nation. All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 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, and the problem is growing. One way in which Federal, State, and local governments are responding to this problem is by promoting greater use of transit as a commuting option. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that last year, Americans took over 9.5 billion trips on transit, the highest level in more than 40 years. But we need to do more to encourage people to get out of their cars and onto public transportation. The Internal Revenue Code currently allows employers to provide a tax-free transit benefit to their employees. Under this ``Commuter Choice'' program, employers can set aside up to $100 per month of an employee's pre-tax income to pay for the cost of commuting by public transportation or vanpool. Alternatively, an employer can choose to offer the same amount as a tax-free benefit in addition to an employee's salary. This program is designed to encourage Americans to leave their cars behind when commuting to work. By all accounts, this program is working. In the Washington area, for example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority estimates that over 200,000 commuters take advantage of transit pass programs offered by their employers. That means fewer cars on our congested streets and highways. Employees of the federal government account for a large percentage of those benefitting from this program in the Washington area. Under an Executive Order, all Federal agencies in the National Capital Region, which includes Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, as well as several counties in Northern Virginia, are required to offer this transit benefit to their employees. The Commuter Choice program is now being used by an estimated 130,000 Washington-area Federal employees who are choosing to take transit to work. However, despite the success of the Commuter Choice program, our tax laws still reflect a bias toward driving. The Internal Revenue Code allows employers to offer a tax-free parking benefit to their employees of up to $190 per month. The striking disparity between the amount allowed for parking--$190 per month--and the amount allowed for transit--$100 per month--undermines our commitment to supporting public transportation use. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would address this discrepancy by raising the maximum monthly transit benefit to $190, equal to the parking benefit, and providing that the benefits will be adjusted upward together in future years. The Federal Government should not reward those who drive to work more richly than those who take public transportation. Indeed, since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Federal transportation policy has endeavored to create a level playing field between highways and transit, favoring neither mode above the other. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would ensure that our tax laws reflect this balanced approach. In addition, the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remedy another inconsistency in current law. Private-sector employers can offer their employees the transit benefit in tandem with the parking benefit, to help employees pay for the costs of parking at transit facilities, commuter rail stations, or other locations which serve public transportation or vanpool commuters. However, under current law, Federal agencies cannot offer a parking benefit to their employees who use park-and-ride lots or other remote parking locations. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remove this restriction, allowing Federal employees access to the same benefits enjoyed by their private-sector counterparts. The Washington Metropolitan Region is home to thousands of Federal employees. It is also one of the Nation's most highly congested areas, ranking fourth in per capita congestion. This area has the third longest average commute time in the country. It is clearly in our interest to support programs which encourage Federal employees to make greater use of public transportation for their commuting needs. The simple change made by the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would provide a significant benefit to those Federal employees whose commute to work includes parking at a transit facility. For example, a commuter who rides the Metrorail to work and parks at the Rockville park-and- ride lot pays about $45 monthly for parking, on top of the cost of riding the train. A private-sector employee whose employer provides the parking benefit in addition to salary could receive $540 a year tax free to help pay these parking costs. Federal government employees should be allowed the same benefit. I support the Commuter Benefits Equity Act because it creates parity--parity in the tax code between the parking and transit benefits, and parity for Federal employees with their private-sector counterparts. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by supporting public transportation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Commuter Benefits Equity Act.