Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that when President Bush came into office in 2001, the fiscal situation which he inherited was one where we actually we were running a surplus in the Federal budget, if I am not mistaken. We were projecting a surplus, over the next 10-year period--2002 to 2011--of $5.6 trillion. I say to my colleague; is that correct? That was the projection at the time?

Mr. SARBANES. Of course, these were projections. We recognize that. But they were the best estimate that could be made. Over a 10-year period, we were projecting a surplus of $5.6 billion. In fact, some said we were paying down the debt too quickly, if the Senator will recall?

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman. Well, as was pointed out, rather than conserving the budget surplus, which President Bush inherited, he has chosen to risk our fiscal future through excessive tax cuts--tax cuts targeted to those who need them the least. This reconciliation process before us will only continue that pattern. The reconciliation process is supposed to provide special protection to measures to bring the deficit down, not to provide special protection to a combination of measures, as we have here: some spending cuts but greatly exceeded by tax cuts. So the net result of the reconciliation measures to be considered this week and next week will be an increase in the deficit of $30 billion. I don't know anyone who can contest that. It is pretty well conceded. The instructions made it clear from the outset there was to be $35 billion in spending cuts--and they have increased it a few billion--and $70 billion in tax cuts. You put the two together, you have an increase in the deficit of over $30 billion. We are facing serious future challenges. The Senator from North Dakota has been the leader in pointing out to us the need to consider the baby boomers as they approach retirement age, the impact that will have on the fiscal situation of the country, and how we can deal with that in a balanced and equitable way. That discussion is not taking place. Instead, we have this fast-track process in which the most vulnerable amongst us are asked to make the sacrifices in terms of the programs being cut, such as Medicaid and Medicare. The New York Times, in an editorial on October 26, titled ``Stalking the Poor to Soothe the Affluent,'' said: Impoverished Americans are being set up as targets this week in Congress's desperate attempt to find budget cuts after four straight years of tax cuts for the affluent. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. As I draw to a close, I just want to underscore what is happening. I had put a question to the Senator from North Dakota and there wasn't an opportunity to answer. Our debt is escalating at a faster rate than the budget deficit, which compounds the situation. Who is holding this debt? Who is buying this paper and, therefore, has claims against U.S. citizens looking out into the future?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on August 10 of this year the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, known as SAFETEA-LU. This new multi-year reauthorization of our Nation's surface transportation programs represents a carefully balanced package intended to address the needs of our roadways and transit systems. The Chairman of the Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, in his role as Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee, was instrumental in striking that balance. As the Chairman has recognized, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 was reported by the Appropriations Committee prior to passage of SAFETEA-LU, and therefore does not fully reflect the agreements reached in that piece of legislation. To take one specific example, it does not fund the Federal transit program at the level authorized by SAFETEA-LU for fiscal year 2006, falling $400 million short. The funding levels in SAFETEA-LU were the product of a great deal of negotiation, and I greatly appreciate the contributions my colleague from Alabama and my colleague from Missouri made to that discussion. I hope that in this, the first year of SAFETEA-LU's authorization, the agreements reached in SAFETEA-LU will be honored for all modes of transportation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in the complex institutional framework established by our Founding Fathers, members of all three branches of our national government take an oath to support the Constitution. However, it falls uniquely to the Supreme Court of the United States to expound and interpret the Constitution and the laws passed pursuant to it so that our governing law remains true to the basic principles upon which the Nation was founded. The Senate's role in giving advice and consent to the nomination of the men and women who serve on the Supreme Court for a life tenure is amongst the Senate's most important constitutional responsibilities. The argument is made by some that the President is entitled to the confirmation of his or her nominee unless that person is shown to have a serious disqualification. On the contrary, it is my view that the Senate's duty to advise and consent on nominations is an integral part of the Constitution's system of checks and balances among our institutions of government. Nomination does not constitute an entitlement to hold the office. Although all Presidential nominations require the most careful and independent review, judicial nominations differ from nominations to the executive branch in two important respects. Within the constitutional framework, the judiciary is a third coequal branch of government, independent of both the executive and legislative branches. Those who sit on the Federal bench receive lifetime tenure and are to render independent judicial decisions. In contrast, appointees to the executive branch are meant to carry out the program of the President who nominates them, and they serve only at the pleasure of the President or for limited tenure. The bar must, therefore, be set very high when we consider a judicial nomination, especially when the nomination is to the Supreme Court and, as in the matter pending before the Senate, to the position of Chief Justice of the United States. While qualifications and intellect are important criteria, obviously, in considering a nomination to the Supreme Court, the Senate must also take into consideration the judicial philosophy and constitutional vision of any nominee for appointment to the Supreme Court. As Chief Justice Rehnquist, for whom Roberts clerked, wrote in 1959, well before he went on the Court: [U]ntil the Senate restores its practice of thoroughly informing itself on the judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court nominee before voting to confirm him, it will have a hard time convincing doubters that it could make effective use of any additional part in the selection process. Inquiring into a nominee's judicial philosophy does not mean discovering how he or she would decide specific cases. Rather, it seeks to ascertain the nominee's fundamental perspective on the Constitution: how it protects our individual liberties, ensures equal protection of the law, maintains the separation of powers and checks and balances. The Constitution is a living document. Its strength lies in its extraordinary adaptability and applicability over more than 200 years to conditions that the Framers could not have anticipated or even imagined. The confirmation process provided Judge Roberts with an opportunity to outline his general approach to the Constitution in critical areas-- among them, the rights and liberties guaranteed to our citizens, the extent of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, and the balance of power among the three branches of government. Regrettably, he declined to do so, saying that he does not have an overarching judicial philosophy and comparing the role of a Justice to that of an umpire. The New York Times put it succinctly in an editorial: In many important areas where Senators wanted to be reassured that he would be a careful guardian of Americans' rights, he refused to give any solid indication of his legal approach. The uncertainty arising from the hearings is compounded by the refusal of the administration to provide documents from Judge Roberts' service as principal Deputy Solicitor General, which members of the Judiciary Committee had requested in the course of carrying out their constitutional responsibility. As a result, we must try to infer his underlying philosophy and views from the earlier documents made available to the committee. Those documents are not reassuring. I am deeply concerned that the documents we have from John Roberts raise questions about his approach and his thinking on such basic issues as voting rights, affirmative action, privacy, racial and gender equality, limitation on executive authority, and congressional power under the commerce clause. Given the importance of the position of Chief Justice, in deciding whether to give consent to this nomination it is essential that it be an informed consent--an informed consent. As the New York Times editorial pointed out: That position is too important to entrust to an enigma, which is what Mr. Roberts remains. I will vote against confirming John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the leadership of Senator Reid and Senator Landrieu who have announced a package of proposals to be of assistance to the Hurricane Katrina victims so that the millions of people affected by the devastation along the gulf coast can begin to rebuild their lives. The amendment which I have sent to the desk is only part of that broader proposal and deals with the housing situation which now confronts the victims of this tragic storm. Before going into the details of the proposal, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to those in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi who have lost loved ones or who are still searching for family members, neighbors, and friends. They need to know that the thoughts and prayers of the country are with them during these very difficult and trying times. We know that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their houses, their jobs, their belongings, indeed, their communities. An effort is now underway in the Congress to come to their assistance. We know the road to recovery will not be easy and it will not be short, but we need to undertake these efforts immediately. It was earlier estimated this week by FEMA officials and told to the President that 500,000 to a million people were rendered homeless by Hurricane Katrina and the deadly floods that followed the hurricane. In fact, yesterday's New York Times reported that as many as a million people are without housing. While the first job was to evacuate people, to get them food and water and to address their medical needs, in other words, to in effect save the lives of those who have been so heavily impacted, I think it is fair to say that the next job confronting us would be to find adequate housing for the survivors of Katrina. The Americans displaced by the hurricane are scattered throughout the country now. I want to underscore the comments made by some of my colleagues earlier about the opening up of the arms of Americans across the country to take people in in this time of emergency and the great need. Families coming out of the gulf coast are in effect living wherever they can find a roof over their heads, with relatives, with friends, with caring strangers who have volunteered to take them in, in shelters--for example, Houston opened up the Astrodome--on cruise ships or in tents. It is fair to say if one stops and thinks about this for a moment it is, at best, a temporary housing situation. The hundreds of thousands of displaced families need to have access to stable housing so they can send their kids to school, start pulling their lives back together again, which is, of course, a pressing challenge, seek employment and chart out a future for themselves. This amendment, recognizing the overwhelming need for stable housing, proposes an emergency housing voucher program of $3.5 billion, which would provide temporary rental assistance to more than 350,000 displaced families. It eliminates--I should say more accurately suspends for a limited period of time--many of the requirements and the restrictions that ordinarily apply to the housing voucher program. For example, any person or family displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina would be eligible to receive this much needed assistance; they could get a temporary housing voucher. This is without regard to their income situation. It recognizes the storm hit rich and poor alike and this is an effort to give them some immediate, short-term help so they can move out of the situation in which they find themselves. The temporary rental vouchers would quickly and efficiently move families into stable housing across the country in the communities to which they have relocated. So it would give them an opportunity, with the voucher that would come to them, to find housing for themselves and their families. They could move out of the shelters. They could move out of temporary facilities. They could cease to live with relatives, friends or, indeed, strangers. The rental assistance will be flexible and it will be easy to use. It will have payments sufficient so they can find suitable housing. The funds provided could be used anywhere in the country by those who have been impacted by the hurricane whose situation was created by the hurricane to pay for rent, security deposits, relocation expenses and moving expenses back to the affected areas at the appropriate time. So, if and when the time comes, they could return to their homes if that was the choice. The assistance would be available for an initial period of 6 months. It is limited. A further 6 months is available, an extension, unless the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development finds that the assistance is no longer needed. But the maximum extent of these temporary housing vouchers would be 1 year. It would be 6 months, with a possibility of an extension. The emergency program would be administered by HUD, which could operate the vouchers directly or provide the vouchers to local housing agencies, State and local governments or other entities, so long as the vouchers get out quickly to those in need. We have a complicated problem here because the public housing authorities, of course, are locally based. The ones in areas where the people have been displaced are, in effect, out of business. There is no housing there by definition, since people have had to evacuate and leave. These people have now been moved to different parts of the country. We need to be able to get these vouchers to them and get them to them quickly. We know people want to return to their neighborhoods, but it will probably be months before that is at all possible. Ordinarily, FEMA provides trailers and other housing after a disaster. That is how ordinarily it works. But the magnitude and scope of this disaster is unprecedented. FEMA has never had to deal with something of this magnitude, and it was the judgment, in putting this amendment together, that HUD had an expertise with respect to these rental vouchers. The emergency is a new dimension for HUD, but we thought that they have trained staff and could take over this responsibility and move it forward quickly. I might note that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary Jackson, earlier in his career, has had very extensive experience directing public housing authorities--in Washington, DC; St. Louis, MO, and in Dallas, TX. So he has had a lot of experience actually on the ground with respect to housing. We think he could marshal the Department and its staff to respond in this situation. This only begins to deal with the problem. I do not begin to assert that this represents a total or comprehensive solution to the housing challenge. But it enables us to get underway. Any family displaced by the hurricane would be eligible to receive a temporary voucher to pay for renting safe and decent housing, pay for rent, security, utility deposits, relocation expenses, and then eventually, we hope, moving expenses back to their permanent homes. These vouchers could be used anywhere across the country. It would not require a certification of income initially in order to get the voucher, and the families would be relieved of paying the rent, their portion of the rent which is required under the regular voucher program, until family members return to work. Once they return to work, the tenants would have to pay rental payments, as they do in the regular housing voucher program. We are trying to cover all the bases here. We are trying to be very sensitive to the problem. We are trying to look at the problem through the eyes of those who have been struck by the hurricane, in terms of how they see it. These people are now there. All kinds of makeshift housing is being found for them. But that, even on a temporary basis, does not represent an appropriate response. So we want to move them a little further down the path toward having a more normal living situation. We ease up a little bit about the amount of rent they can pay. We allow it to go a bit above the median instead of having to be below the median because we know finding rental units will be a difficult job. As I said, this gives authorities to HUD they do not now have to directly administer the program so they can reach out to these former residents of the gulf coast who are now scattered out across the country. They can work with the housing agencies, State and local governments, and other entities. As I noted, it has a limited time provision. So it would enable us to, in effect, provide all of these people who have had to leave their homes an opportunity to put some stability into their lives. So they could then go on and deal with the other problems that are confronting them--the problems of getting their kids back in school, the problems of employment, the problems of meeting all of the other pressures that have come before us. But we have moved these people out. Some are being held in shelters. Others are being dispersed. But what is the next step for them? We think this represents the next step. It is a targeted approach. The authorities it gives are temporary. The limitations and restrictions it eases and removes are done on a temporary basis, so it is not permanent in its eventual impact. But it does provide, for the next 6 to 12 months, a degree of stability and a degree of permanence which I think is very important in enabling the people who have been struck by this tragedy to help put their lives back together again. I very much hope, when the appropriate time comes, my colleagues will support this proposal. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES. Could I ask what the parliamentary situation is?

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to facilitate the orderly disposition of an 800 acre parcel of Federal property located in Laurel, Maryland, a portion of which is currently used by the District of Columbia as the Oak Hills Juvenile Detention and Commitment Center. The legislation is a companion to a measure which has been introduced in the House by Representative Benjamin Cardin. The Oak Hill Youth Center, located adjacent to the National Security Agency and the Baltimore-Washington parkway, is a detention facility for juvenile offenders from the District of Columbia between the ages of 12 and 21. It has been plagued by facility and management problems for many years. The buildings at the center are in deplorable condition and fail to meet health and safety standards. Overcrowding, mismanagement, escapes, drug use and abuse of detainees at the center have been the subject of numerous investigations, press reports and lawsuits over the years, and are of great concern to juvenile justice advocates, families of detainees and local residents, alike. Nearly two decades ago, a consent decree stemming from the lawsuit Jerry M. v. District of Columbia, required the District to make improvements at the facility and address the chronic neglect of its adolescent detainees. Since the decree, ``sixty judicial orders, 44 monitoring reports and almost $3 million in court imposed fines'' have been issued in connection with the District's Youth Services Administration failure to fully comply with the decree, according to a July 2001 article in the Washington Post. Last year a report issued by the District's Inspector General's office found that, ``many of the same types of problems that resulted in the 1986 Jerry M. lawsuit still exist today . . .'' The report documented numerous security problems, health issues, deficiencies in management, failures to effectively maintain the safety of female youth housed at the center, and drugs being smuggled into the facility on a continual basis. There is a consensus that the Oak Hill Youth Center should be shutdown. A Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform, established by Mayor Williams in August 2000, recommended in its final 2001 report that the Oak Hill Juvenile Detention center be closed and demolished. The Justice for DC Youth coalition, whose members include parents and juvenile justice advocates, has adamantly supported closing the existing Oak Hill facility and replacing it with a smaller, more homelike facility that is closer to the youth's homes. This measure seeks to ensure the closure of the facility and the orderly disposition of the property, while addressing the concerns of Anne Arundel County, the NSA, the District of Columbia and all surrounding neighborhoods and residences. Above all, it would serve the youth currently being held at the facility by helping to place them in an environment that is more suitable for successful rehabilitation. I hope this measure can be acted upon quickly by the Congress and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on the transportation reauthorization measure. This legislation authorizes more than $286 billion--more than an $80 billion increase over TEA-21-- in funding over the 6 years for maintaining and improving our Nation's and State's highways, bridges and transit systems. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have considered this year and its enactment will help to restore the Federal commitment to our surface transportation infrastructure--the lifeblood for our economy as well as our quality of life. As the ranking member on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee which crafted the transit portion of this legislation, I am proud that the agreement continues our commitment to a national transit program and builds on the important achievements we made in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, of 1991, and TEA-21, enacted in 1998. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Shelby of the full committee for his efforts on the balanced budget amendment of the transit title and to Senators Allard and Reed, the chairman and ranking member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, for their hard work as well. This legislation increase overall transit funding by 45 percent over the levels provided in the past 6 years to meet the growing needs for public transit infrastructure in all regions of the country. It provides the resources and planning tools to help ensure the continued development of an advanced, integrated transit system--a system that will cut air pollution, conserve fuel and reduce congestion on our roadways. This measure will go a long way to meeting the growing demand for transit in cities, towns, rural areas, and suburban jurisdictions across the country. I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes two key provisions which I sponsored, the Transit in Parks Act, or TRIP, and an expansion of the commuter benefits program to encourage greater mass transit use by Federal employees in the National Capital Area. The new Federal transit grant initiative known as TRIP 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. The expansion of the commuter benefits program will allow thousands more federal employees to take advantage of a guaranteed tax-free financial incentive of up to $105 per month, paid by their employer, towards the costs of transit commuting. It will give employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit. In addition, Federal agencies will be permitted to offer shuttle services for their employees to a public transit facility. This is particularly important to employees of the Food and Drug Administration who will be relocating to the new FDA headquarters at White Oak, MD. Maryland's formula share of transit funding will grow by nearly $275 million over the 6 years--from $571 million to $846 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, D.C., Frederick and Brunswick, the Baltimore Light Rail system, and bus systems and para- transit systems for elderly and disabled people throughout Maryland. This bill advances important existing and planned new transit projects in the Baltimore and Washington Metropolitan areas as well as in growing regions of our State. In the Washington area, it provides $100 million to enable the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA to purchase 52 new rail cars to help alleviate the severe overcrowding that the Metrorail system is currently experiencing. The new cars will enable WMATA to lengthen trains from 6 cars to 8 cars on the Metrorail System, utilize more of its design capacity, and give the authority increased ability to assist in case of an emergency. It provides $21 million to enable Montgomery County to complete the Silver Spring Transit Center--a major new transportation hub connecting MARC commuter trains, the Metrorail system, Ride-on and Metro buses and taxi services that is designed for integrated, mixed use private transit-oriented development. The Silver Spring Transit Center will not only enhance regional mobility, but will also help to promote smart growth and continue to strengthen the remarkable revitalization in Silver Spring's downtown business district. The measure also authorizes two new transit projects to help relieve traffic congestion and improve mobility in the region--the Bi-County Transitway, otherwise known as the Purple Line, connecting Bethesda to Silver Spring and extending to New Carrollton, and the Corridor Cities Transitway connecting the high-tech employment centers and mix-use developments in the 1-270 corridor to the Washington Metro and MARC Commuter rail. In the Baltimore area, the measure authorizes $105.3 million for planning, environmental study, right of way, and initial construction of the Red and Green Line Transit projects as proposed in the Baltimore Region Transit System Plan. The Red Line--an East-West Transit Line that will extend for approximately 11 miles from the Social Security Administration Headquarters in Woodlawn to Fells Point--will provide service to areas in Baltimore currently not served by high quality transit. The Green Line would extend from the existing Metro system at the Johns Hopkins Hospital for approximately 5 miles northeast to Morgan State University. This authorization will guarantee that these projects continue to move forward in a timely fashion over the next 5 years. The measure also authorized the final $12.5 million in Federal funds needed to complete the double tracking of the Baltimore Light Rail Project and provides $5.2 million to enhance the Baltimore water taxi system. And statewide, the bill authorizes continued funding for the MARC Capacity Expansion Program to enable the Maryland Department of Transportation to make needed capacity improvements, purchase new rolling stock, and enhance the MARC system. The bill also provides $25 million in statewide bus and bus facility grants that benefit towns and cities throughout the State. The measure also includes a provision reauthorizing the National Transportation Center, NTC, at Morgan State University over the next 4 years. The NTC conducts important research, education and technology transfer activities that support workforce development of minorities and women, and addresses urban transportation problems. Morgan State will receive $1 million each year to continue those activities. For our Nation's roadways and bridges, this legislation authorizes nearly $184 billion in funding to enable States and localities to make desperately needed repairs and improvements. 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 programs--Interstate maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge and the Surface Transportation Program. Likewise, ISTEA's and TEA-21's basic principles of flexibility, intermodalism, strategic infrastructure investment, commitment to safety and inclusive decision- making processes are retained. Maryland's share of highway funding will grow from an average of $443 million a year to $583 million a year or an average of $140 million more each year than was provided under TEA-21 for a total of more than $2.9 billion over 5 years. The measure provides funding for a number of important transportation improvement projects through all regions of our State. Senator Mikulski and I placed a high priority in this measure of ensuring that Maryland is ``BRAC'' ready as it prepares to handle an influx of new people in areas surrounding many of Maryland's military installations. In this regard, the measure provides $12.5 million to make sorely needed access improvements to MD 175 in the vicinity of Fort Meade, nearly $10 million for upgrading the US 40, MD 715 interchange at Aberdeen Proving Ground and the Edgewood Train Station, $15 million for construction of MD Route 4 at Suitland Parkway--an important access way to Andrews Air Force Base--and $6 million to design improvements to MD 210--a major regional commuting corridor that provides access to the Indian Head Naval Base in Charles County. The measure also provides $12 million for planning and construction of the Southern Maryland Commuter Initiative, a program of improvements in Southern Maryland to relieve congestion by enhancing peak-period transit services for commuters, including individuals commuting to military bases in Southern Maryland. And it provides over $1.5 million for intermodal improvements at the Edgewood and Odenton MARC stations. We also placed a premium on addressing those areas of Maryland that have experienced particularly severe congestion, bottlenecks or safety problems and provided more than $31 million to upgrade MD Route 404 and US 113 on the Eastern Shore, nearly $30 million to continue improvements to 1-70 in Frederick and to initiate upgrades of US 220 South of Cumberland in Western Maryland, $27 million for upgrades to MD 5 in Southern Maryland, and more than $22 million for roadway, interchange and bridge improvements in the Baltimore metroplitan area We provided funds for several community-based projects around Maryland designed to expand travel choices and enhance the transportation experience of our citizens by improving the cultural, historic, aesthetic and environmental aspects of our transportation infrastructure, including funding to complete the Allegheny Highlands Trail in Western Maryland, the Fort McHenry and Assateague Visitors Centers, the Baltimore water-taxi system, and the roads and trails at Patuxent and Blackwater Refuges. Before I close, I want to take a moment to note the hard work of the staff involved with this bill. This legislation has been years in the making and while it represents the efforts of many individuals there are several whom I would like to especially recognize. First, let me thank the staff of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby, particularly Sherry Little and John East, as well as Tewana Wilkerson of Senator Allard's staff, for their hard work and dedication to the transit program. Also, as I noted earlier, Senator Reed has worked closely with me throughout this process and I want to thank Neil Campbell of his staff for his significant contributions to this bill. On my own staff, I want to recognize Sarah Kline, Aaron Klein, and Charlie Stek for their tireless work and for their commitment to helping the people of Maryland. Kate Mattice, on detail from the Federal Transit Administration to my office last year, also made an important contribution to this legislation. Finally, I would like to extend particular thanks to Richard Steinmann for the exceptional assistance he has provided to the Banking Committee over the past 2 years while he has been on detail from the Federal Transit Administration. Like any other complex and comprehensive piece of legislation, this bill has its share of imperfections. I think it was unfortunate that the administration was unwilling to snpport a higher level of investment in these programs, and as a result the measure that emerged from the conference is billions of dollars less than what the Senate passed a few months ago. And I am particularly disappointed that the measure does not contain the stormwater runoff mitigation provision that was approved by the Senate and is so important to helping States and localities meet water quality standards stemming from the stormwater impacts of Federal aid highways. 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, today I am introducing legislation to facilitate the orderly disposition of an 800 acre parcel of Federal property located in Laurel, Maryland, a portion of which is currently used by the District of Columbia as the Oak Hills Juvenile Detention and Commitment Center. The legislation is a companion to a measure which has been introduced in the House by Representative Benjamin Cardin. The Oak Hill Youth Center, located adjacent to the National Security Agency and the Baltimore-Washington parkway, is a detention facility for juvenile offenders from the District of Columbia between the ages of 12 and 21. It has been plagued by facility and management problems for many years. The buildings at the center are in deplorable condition and fail to meet health and safety standards. Overcrowding, mismanagement, escapes, drug use and abuse of detainees at the center have been the subject of numerous investigations, press reports and lawsuits over the years, and are of great concern to juvenile justice advocates, families of detainees and local residents, alike. Nearly two decades ago, a consent decree stemming from the lawsuit Jerry M. v. District of Columbia, required the District to make improvements at the facility and address the chronic neglect of its adolescent detainees. Since the decree, ``sixty judicial orders, 44 monitoring reports and almost $3 million in court imposed fines'' have been issued in connection with the District's Youth Services Administration failure to fully comply with the decree, according to a July 2001 article in the Washington Post. Last year a report issued by the District's Inspector General's office found that, ``many of the same types of problems that resulted in the 1986 Jerry M. lawsuit still exist today . . .'' The report documented numerous security problems, health issues, deficiencies in management, failures to effectively maintain the safety of female youth housed at the center, and drugs being smuggled into the facility on a continual basis. There is a consensus that the Oak Hill Youth Center should be shutdown. A Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform, established by Mayor Williams in August 2000, recommended in its final 2001 report that the Oak Hill Juvenile Detention center be closed and demolished. The Justice for DC Youth coalition, whose members include parents and juvenile justice advocates, has adamantly supported closing the existing Oak Hill facility and replacing it with a smaller, more homelike facility that is closer to the youth's homes. This measure seeks to ensure the closure of the facility and the orderly disposition of the property, while addressing the concerns of Anne Arundel County, the NSA, the District of Columbia and all surrounding neighborhoods and residences. Above all, it would serve the youth currently being held at the facility by helping to place them in an environment that is more suitable for successful rehabilitation. I hope this measure can be acted upon quickly by the Congress and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Lincoln Highway, which was officially routed through Washington, DC, on July 27, 1915, making it a true national highway. The construction of the highway was not only an important milestone in our Nation's history, but it has also served as a significant link in the development of Maryland's highway system. The highway was first conceived in 1912, when most roads were little more than deeply rutted wagon trails. But with the rise of the automobile, the need for a transcontinental road had become increasingly apparent and ambitious plans were laid for this enormous undertaking. The original proposed route for the highway ran from New York to California, but did not pass through Maryland or the Nation's Capital. COL Robert Harper, who at the time was President of the DC Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the Lincoln Highway Feeder Committee, lead a campaign to have the route altered to pass by the Lincoln Memorial. He approached Maryland Senator Blair Lee, whose seat I am proud to occupy, asking for help in the rerouting of the thoroughfare. Senator Lee wrote to President Woodrow Wilson and arranged a meeting between the President and Colonel Harper. That meeting led President Wilson to lobby on behalf of the proposed change in the route. Through the efforts of President Wilson, Senator Lee, and Colonel Harper, the President of the Lincoln Highway Association was convinced to change the course of the highway so that it could pass through the Nation's Capital. This change brought additional visitors to both the State of Maryland and Washington, DC. In addition, the change preserved the spirit of President Abraham Lincoln and united the west and east coasts of the United States of America. I am pleased to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Lincoln Highway a ``Road of Character'' and a ``Perpetual Memorial'' to President Lincoln which both commemorated a great leader and paved the way for the future of transportation in America.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation together with Senators Mikulski, Biden, Clinton, Murkowski, Murray, Wyden, Lautenberg, Schumer, and Durbin which would grant a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated. This legislation, which has passed the Senate in each of the past three Congresses, recognizes the 5.7 million Americans who fought and served during the Korean War and honors their sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and ideals of our Nation. Today marks the 52nd Anniversary of the signing of the Military Armistice Agreement which officially ended armed hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. By the time the fighting ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or prisoners of war some of whom are still missing and more than 36,000 Americans had died. One hundred and thirty-one Korean War Veterans were awarded the Nation's highest commendation for combat bravery, the Medal of Honor. Ninety-four of these soldiers gave their lives in the process. When the North Korea People's Army swept across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea in June of 1950, members of our Armed Forces including many from the State of Maryland immediately answered the call of the U.N. to repel this forceful invasion. Without hesitation, these soldiers traveled to an unfamiliar corner of the world to join an unprecedented multi-national force comprised of 22 countries, and risked their lives to protect freedom. The Americans who led this international effort were true patriots who fought with remarkable courage. In battles such as Pork Chop Hill, the Inchon Landing, and the frozen Chosin Reservoir, which was fought in temperatures as low as fifty-seven degrees below zero, they faced some of the most brutal combat in history. The sacrifices made by these brave individuals are well described by an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial, which reads: ``Freedom is not Free.'' Yet, as a Nation, we have done little more than establish this memorial to publicly acknowledge the bravery of those who fought in the Korean War. The Korean War has been termed by many as the ``Forgotten War.'' Freedom is not free. We owe our Korean War Veterans a debt of gratitude. Granting this Federal charter--at no cost to the government--is a small expression of appreciation that we as a Nation can offer to these men and women, one which will enable them to work as a unified front to ensure that the ``Forgotten War'' is forgotten no more. The Korean War Veterans Association was originally incorporated on June 25, 1985. Since its first annual reunion and memorial service in Arlington, VA, where its members decided to develop a national focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown substantially to a membership of over 17,000. A Federal charter would allow the Association to continue to grow its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. Specifically, it will afford the Korean War Veterans' Association the same status as other major veterans' organizations and allow it to participate as part of select committees with other congressionally chartered veterans and military groups. A Federal charter will also accelerate the Association's ``accreditation'' with the Department of Veterans Affairs which will enable its members to assist in processing veterans' claims. The Korean War Veterans have asked for very little in return for their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation together with Senators Mikulski, Biden, Clinton, Murkowski, Murray, Wyden, Lautenberg, Schumer, and Durbin which would grant a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated. This legislation, which has passed the Senate in each of the past three Congresses, recognizes the 5.7 million Americans who fought and served during the Korean War and honors their sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and ideals of our Nation. Today marks the 52nd Anniversary of the signing of the Military Armistice Agreement which officially ended armed hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. By the time the fighting ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or prisoners of war some of whom are still missing and more than 36,000 Americans had died. One hundred and thirty-one Korean War Veterans were awarded the Nation's highest commendation for combat bravery, the Medal of Honor. Ninety-four of these soldiers gave their lives in the process. When the North Korea People's Army swept across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea in June of 1950, members of our Armed Forces including many from the State of Maryland immediately answered the call of the U.N. to repel this forceful invasion. Without hesitation, these soldiers traveled to an unfamiliar corner of the world to join an unprecedented multi-national force comprised of 22 countries, and risked their lives to protect freedom. The Americans who led this international effort were true patriots who fought with remarkable courage. In battles such as Pork Chop Hill, the Inchon Landing, and the frozen Chosin Reservoir, which was fought in temperatures as low as fifty-seven degrees below zero, they faced some of the most brutal combat in history. The sacrifices made by these brave individuals are well described by an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial, which reads: ``Freedom is not Free.'' Yet, as a Nation, we have done little more than establish this memorial to publicly acknowledge the bravery of those who fought in the Korean War. The Korean War has been termed by many as the ``Forgotten War.'' Freedom is not free. We owe our Korean War Veterans a debt of gratitude. Granting this Federal charter--at no cost to the government--is a small expression of appreciation that we as a Nation can offer to these men and women, one which will enable them to work as a unified front to ensure that the ``Forgotten War'' is forgotten no more. The Korean War Veterans Association was originally incorporated on June 25, 1985. Since its first annual reunion and memorial service in Arlington, VA, where its members decided to develop a national focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown substantially to a membership of over 17,000. A Federal charter would allow the Association to continue to grow its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. Specifically, it will afford the Korean War Veterans' Association the same status as other major veterans' organizations and allow it to participate as part of select committees with other congressionally chartered veterans and military groups. A Federal charter will also accelerate the Association's ``accreditation'' with the Department of Veterans Affairs which will enable its members to assist in processing veterans' claims. The Korean War Veterans have asked for very little in return for their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five measures to sustain and indeed renew the Federal commitment to restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, and Santorum. In his 1984 State of the Union message, President Ronald Reagan called the Chesapeake Bay a ``special national resource'' and pledged $10 million a year for 4 years to ``begin the long, necessary effort to clean up'' the Bay. Today, despite more than 2 decades of effort and the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars on the part of Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector, the goal of a clean, restored Bay appears elusive. For the past 3 years, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has given the Chesapeake Bay a failing grade of 27 out of 100 on its annual report card--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be declared ``saved.'' The continued flood of sediments and nutrient pollution from sewage treatment plants, farms, urban runoff, and air deposition, combined with continued rapid growth in population and development in the watershed, is offsetting the progress that has been made to date in restoring the Bay. The Bay remains an ``impaired water body'' under the Clean Water Act, and Chesapeake Bay Program scientists are forecasting another summer of very low oxygen levels in the deep waters of the Bay, further stressing oysters, crabs, and other living resources. As author and naturalist Tom Horton points out in a recent National Geographic article, ``No one had illusions that the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program, a massive Federal-State restoration effort, begun in 1983 and unmatched anywhere in the world, would be quick or easy. But no one anticipated that 22 years later we would still be struggling.'' If the Bay is to be restored, we must redouble our efforts. Nitrogen pollution from all sources will have to be substantially reduced, thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant efforts must be made to restore living resources, and buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created. Likewise, assistance to community organizations, local governments, and educational institutions at all levels must be expanded dramatically to help foster local stewardship and entice more of the 16 million residents who live in the watershed to play active roles in the efforts to restore the Bay. The five measures that we are introducing are an important part of, but by no means the entire, solution for addressing the Bay's problems. Earlier in this Congress, Members from the Bay-area States, from both parties, joined with me in a letter to President Bush, urging him to make restoration of Chesapeake Bay a top environmental priority and to commit $1 billion in his budget as a down-payment towards restoring the Bay's water quality. We called upon the Secretary of Agriculture to release $100 million provided under the 2002 Farm Bill for farmers to test new, innovative techniques for reducing agricultural nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Under Senator Warner's leadership, we succeeded in getting a provision in the Senate-passed SAFETEA legislation, which would provide more than $70 million for the Bay area States and local governments to mitigate the impacts of storm- water runoff from highways and related impervious surfaces. We have fought to prevent a significant cut in funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. And we have continued to press the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the Clean Water Act is fully enforced. All these are critical components of a more comprehensive effort on the part of the Federal, State and local governments and the private sector that will be needed over the course of the next few years to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Environmental Accountability Act of 2005, would reauthorize and enhance EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and would increase the program's accountability for improving the health of the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program, which has guided the clean-up effort for the past two decades, expires this year and must be reauthorized. Originally authorized in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and reauthorized in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program provides support and coordination for Federal, State, and local efforts in developing strategies and action plans, conducting system-wide monitoring and assessment, implementing projects to restore and protect the Bay and its living resources, and communicating with the public about the Bay and efforts to restore and protect it. Last year, Senator Mikulski, Senator Warner, and I asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the Bay Program that would assess the overall restoration progress reported for the Bay; determine how progress is measured in the Bay watershed; and evaluate the effectiveness of Chesapeake Bay Program efforts to ensure that proper measures are being used. That study is nearing completion. Its preliminary findings recommend a number of improvements to the Program, which we have incorporated in this measure. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement provides goals for the Bay, but the GAO found that EPA has not developed a plan to achieve these goals. Bay restoration has also been hampered by a lack of interim goals and time frames against which progress can be assessed. The legislation we are introducing today requires the EPA Administrator to develop an implementation plan for reaching the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, including a timeline with specific annual goals for nutrient and sediment reduction, associated costs, and measures for assessing progress, and to prepare an annual report for Congress that describes the accomplishments of the previous year and the reductions likely to occur in the future. The legislation also directs the Administrator to publish and widely circulate annual ``tributary report cards'' that describe the progress made in achieving the nutrient and sediment reduction goals for each major tributary or tributary segment in the Bay watershed. These ``report cards'' will provide the public with a clear and accurate picture of the progress toward restoring the Bay, which is currently lacking. In addition, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is to submit an annual report on Chesapeake Bay Program funding. The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th Congress, and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on that legislation. Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, the overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus continues to rob the Bay of life-sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 40 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 100 million pounds from the current 275 million pounds to less than 175 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent. In December 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Commission issued a report entitled ``Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay''; of the six most cost-effective strategies listed in that report, upgrading wastewater treatment plants is Number One. There are more than 300 significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These plants contribute almost 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year-- one-fifth--of the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter would remove as much as 30 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year, or 30 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant savings in energy usage, 20-30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, 5-15 percent. Furthermore, the benefits from upgrading sewage treatment plants have an immediate result on the Bay's water quality, unlike other methods that primarily affect nutrients in ground water and may take years to produce results. This legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading the plants with state- of-the-art nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs. The third measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and citizenship among the 16 million people who live in the watershed is necessary if all of the other efforts to save the Bay are to succeed. Expanding environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem but also to a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the environment, their community, and their role in society as responsible citizens. One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement is to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. There are more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed, and despite important efforts by Bay area states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage of these students have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs. This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next four years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program that we established several years ago. The fourth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987 and 1997--almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments, resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, is less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling stormwater runoff, erosion and air pollution. Restoring and conserving forests is essential to sustaining the Bay ecosystem. Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Service has worked closely with Federal, State, and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration, and stewardship activities can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; to promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; to assess the Bay's forest lands; and to provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances, and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands. This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It requires an evaluation of the urban and rural forests in the watershed. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment, and planning efforts for urban, suburban and rural areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations, and citizen groups in conducting on-the-ground conservation projects. It establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000-square-mile watershed. The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Monitoring, Education, Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the authorities of the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to address the goals and commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement with regard to living-resource restoration and education and training. It builds upon provisions contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, Program--the first federally funded environmental education program focused solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill; it establishes an aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab hatchery production; and it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program and authorizes a new restoration program for submerged aquatic vegetation. To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of weather, tide, habitat, water-quality and other data collected and compiled by Federal, State, and local government agencies and academic institutions and to make this information more useful to resource managers, scientists, and the public, this bill also establishes an integrated observing system for the Chesapeake Bay. This system will build on and coordinate existing monitoring and observing activities in the Bay and its watershed, and will include development of an internet-based system for integrating and disseminating the vast amounts of information available. These measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and supporting letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five measures to sustain and indeed renew the Federal commitment to restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, and Santorum. In his 1984 State of the Union message, President Ronald Reagan called the Chesapeake Bay a ``special national resource'' and pledged $10 million a year for 4 years to ``begin the long, necessary effort to clean up'' the Bay. Today, despite more than 2 decades of effort and the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars on the part of Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector, the goal of a clean, restored Bay appears elusive. For the past 3 years, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has given the Chesapeake Bay a failing grade of 27 out of 100 on its annual report card--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be declared ``saved.'' The continued flood of sediments and nutrient pollution from sewage treatment plants, farms, urban runoff, and air deposition, combined with continued rapid growth in population and development in the watershed, is offsetting the progress that has been made to date in restoring the Bay. The Bay remains an ``impaired water body'' under the Clean Water Act, and Chesapeake Bay Program scientists are forecasting another summer of very low oxygen levels in the deep waters of the Bay, further stressing oysters, crabs, and other living resources. As author and naturalist Tom Horton points out in a recent National Geographic article, ``No one had illusions that the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program, a massive Federal-State restoration effort, begun in 1983 and unmatched anywhere in the world, would be quick or easy. But no one anticipated that 22 years later we would still be struggling.'' If the Bay is to be restored, we must redouble our efforts. Nitrogen pollution from all sources will have to be substantially reduced, thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant efforts must be made to restore living resources, and buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created. Likewise, assistance to community organizations, local governments, and educational institutions at all levels must be expanded dramatically to help foster local stewardship and entice more of the 16 million residents who live in the watershed to play active roles in the efforts to restore the Bay. The five measures that we are introducing are an important part of, but by no means the entire, solution for addressing the Bay's problems. Earlier in this Congress, Members from the Bay-area States, from both parties, joined with me in a letter to President Bush, urging him to make restoration of Chesapeake Bay a top environmental priority and to commit $1 billion in his budget as a down-payment towards restoring the Bay's water quality. We called upon the Secretary of Agriculture to release $100 million provided under the 2002 Farm Bill for farmers to test new, innovative techniques for reducing agricultural nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Under Senator Warner's leadership, we succeeded in getting a provision in the Senate-passed SAFETEA legislation, which would provide more than $70 million for the Bay area States and local governments to mitigate the impacts of storm- water runoff from highways and related impervious surfaces. We have fought to prevent a significant cut in funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. And we have continued to press the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the Clean Water Act is fully enforced. All these are critical components of a more comprehensive effort on the part of the Federal, State and local governments and the private sector that will be needed over the course of the next few years to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Environmental Accountability Act of 2005, would reauthorize and enhance EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and would increase the program's accountability for improving the health of the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program, which has guided the clean-up effort for the past two decades, expires this year and must be reauthorized. Originally authorized in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and reauthorized in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program provides support and coordination for Federal, State, and local efforts in developing strategies and action plans, conducting system-wide monitoring and assessment, implementing projects to restore and protect the Bay and its living resources, and communicating with the public about the Bay and efforts to restore and protect it. Last year, Senator Mikulski, Senator Warner, and I asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the Bay Program that would assess the overall restoration progress reported for the Bay; determine how progress is measured in the Bay watershed; and evaluate the effectiveness of Chesapeake Bay Program efforts to ensure that proper measures are being used. That study is nearing completion. Its preliminary findings recommend a number of improvements to the Program, which we have incorporated in this measure. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement provides goals for the Bay, but the GAO found that EPA has not developed a plan to achieve these goals. Bay restoration has also been hampered by a lack of interim goals and time frames against which progress can be assessed. The legislation we are introducing today requires the EPA Administrator to develop an implementation plan for reaching the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, including a timeline with specific annual goals for nutrient and sediment reduction, associated costs, and measures for assessing progress, and to prepare an annual report for Congress that describes the accomplishments of the previous year and the reductions likely to occur in the future. The legislation also directs the Administrator to publish and widely circulate annual ``tributary report cards'' that describe the progress made in achieving the nutrient and sediment reduction goals for each major tributary or tributary segment in the Bay watershed. These ``report cards'' will provide the public with a clear and accurate picture of the progress toward restoring the Bay, which is currently lacking. In addition, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is to submit an annual report on Chesapeake Bay Program funding. The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th Congress, and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on that legislation. Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, the overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus continues to rob the Bay of life-sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 40 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 100 million pounds from the current 275 million pounds to less than 175 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent. In December 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Commission issued a report entitled ``Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay''; of the six most cost-effective strategies listed in that report, upgrading wastewater treatment plants is Number One. There are more than 300 significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These plants contribute almost 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year-- one-fifth--of the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter would remove as much as 30 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year, or 30 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant savings in energy usage, 20-30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, 5-15 percent. Furthermore, the benefits from upgrading sewage treatment plants have an immediate result on the Bay's water quality, unlike other methods that primarily affect nutrients in ground water and may take years to produce results. This legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading the plants with state- of-the-art nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs. The third measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and citizenship among the 16 million people who live in the watershed is necessary if all of the other efforts to save the Bay are to succeed. Expanding environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem but also to a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the environment, their community, and their role in society as responsible citizens. One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement is to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. There are more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed, and despite important efforts by Bay area states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage of these students have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs. This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next four years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program that we established several years ago. The fourth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987 and 1997--almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments, resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, is less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling stormwater runoff, erosion and air pollution. Restoring and conserving forests is essential to sustaining the Bay ecosystem. Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Service has worked closely with Federal, State, and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration, and stewardship activities can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; to promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; to assess the Bay's forest lands; and to provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances, and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands. This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It requires an evaluation of the urban and rural forests in the watershed. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment, and planning efforts for urban, suburban and rural areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations, and citizen groups in conducting on-the-ground conservation projects. It establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000-square-mile watershed. The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Monitoring, Education, Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the authorities of the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to address the goals and commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement with regard to living-resource restoration and education and training. It builds upon provisions contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, Program--the first federally funded environmental education program focused solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill; it establishes an aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab hatchery production; and it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program and authorizes a new restoration program for submerged aquatic vegetation. To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of weather, tide, habitat, water-quality and other data collected and compiled by Federal, State, and local government agencies and academic institutions and to make this information more useful to resource managers, scientists, and the public, this bill also establishes an integrated observing system for the Chesapeake Bay. This system will build on and coordinate existing monitoring and observing activities in the Bay and its watershed, and will include development of an internet-based system for integrating and disseminating the vast amounts of information available. These measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and supporting letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation, together with my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Landrieu, Warner and Allen to bolster efforts to restore the Anacostia River. I spoke during the 108th Congress about the need for this legislation and I want to underscore the principal reasons today. The Anacostia River is a resource rich in history and with tremendous natural resource and recreational potential. It is home to 43 species of fish, some 200 species of birds, as well as more than 800,000 people whose neighborhoods border the watershed. Flowing through Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland and emptying into the Potomac at the District of Columbia, the watershed consists of a 176 square mile drainage area. One of the most urbanized watersheds in the United States, the Anacostia suffers a series of problems including trash, toxic pollution from urban runoff, sewage pollution from leaking sewer lines and combined sewer overflows, sediment pollution from erosion, and loss of fish and wildlife and recreational resources. It is a resource that has long been abused and neglected, but one that, in my view, can and must be protected and restored. Efforts to begin rejuvenating the Anacostia watershed began formally in 1987 when the State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and the District of Columbia signed an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement. The Agreement authorized the Washington Area Council of Governments, COG, to manage the restoration program and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to protect the resources and facilitate public participation. COG created an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, AWRC, to coordinate and implement restoration projects throughout the watershed. Since that time, local, State, and Federal Government agencies, as well as the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Anacostia Citizens Advisory Committee and other environmental organizations and dedicated private citizens have contributed significant resources toward re-establishing the Anacostia watershed ecosystem. Thanks to this cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local and private effort, we are beginning to make some progress in restoring the watershed. A Six Point Action Plan was signed in 1991 setting ambitious and broad-reaching goals for the river's restoration. In 1993 we celebrated the successful restoration of 32 acres of emergent tidal wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers at Kenilworth marsh. The project has shown significant results in improving tidal water flow through the marsh, and reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the area and demonstrates what can be achieved in urban river restoration. There have been other success stories as well in urban stream restoration in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, removing barriers to fish passage and reforestation efforts throughout the watershed, to name only a few. In 1999, a new Anacostia Watershed Agreement was signed to strengthen the regional governmental commitment to Anacostia restoration. There are today more than 60 local, State and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration. And more than $100 million has been spent cleaning up the river. There is clearly much for which we can all be proud. But the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The Anacostia is still one of North America's most endangered and threatened rivers. It is designated one of three ``regions of concern'' for toxics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The legislation which we are introducing authorizes more than $200 million in Federal assistance over the next 10 years to restore the Anacostia. Of these funds, $170 million is authorized to address the biggest pollution problems in the watershed--storm water runoff and failing waste-water infrastructure. As the builder of much of the original infrastructure and a major user, the Federal Government has an important responsibility to help stem the flow of this pollution and comply with the Clean Water Act. The remaining funds will allow the Administrator of EPA, working together with an ``Anacostia Watershed Council'' of State and local officials, to develop a comprehensive environmental protection and resource management plan for the watershed, for several Federal agencies to join in the implementation of the plan. The Anacostia River suffers from centuries of impacts and changes. Once a healthy, thriving river, it is today severely degraded. This legislation is urgently needed if we are to achieve the goal of making the Anacostia and its tributaries swimmable and fishable again. It is my hope that provisions of this measure will be included in the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation, together with my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Landrieu, Warner and Allen to bolster efforts to restore the Anacostia River. I spoke during the 108th Congress about the need for this legislation and I want to underscore the principal reasons today. The Anacostia River is a resource rich in history and with tremendous natural resource and recreational potential. It is home to 43 species of fish, some 200 species of birds, as well as more than 800,000 people whose neighborhoods border the watershed. Flowing through Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland and emptying into the Potomac at the District of Columbia, the watershed consists of a 176 square mile drainage area. One of the most urbanized watersheds in the United States, the Anacostia suffers a series of problems including trash, toxic pollution from urban runoff, sewage pollution from leaking sewer lines and combined sewer overflows, sediment pollution from erosion, and loss of fish and wildlife and recreational resources. It is a resource that has long been abused and neglected, but one that, in my view, can and must be protected and restored. Efforts to begin rejuvenating the Anacostia watershed began formally in 1987 when the State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and the District of Columbia signed an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement. The Agreement authorized the Washington Area Council of Governments, COG, to manage the restoration program and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to protect the resources and facilitate public participation. COG created an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, AWRC, to coordinate and implement restoration projects throughout the watershed. Since that time, local, State, and Federal Government agencies, as well as the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Anacostia Citizens Advisory Committee and other environmental organizations and dedicated private citizens have contributed significant resources toward re-establishing the Anacostia watershed ecosystem. Thanks to this cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local and private effort, we are beginning to make some progress in restoring the watershed. A Six Point Action Plan was signed in 1991 setting ambitious and broad-reaching goals for the river's restoration. In 1993 we celebrated the successful restoration of 32 acres of emergent tidal wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers at Kenilworth marsh. The project has shown significant results in improving tidal water flow through the marsh, and reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the area and demonstrates what can be achieved in urban river restoration. There have been other success stories as well in urban stream restoration in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, removing barriers to fish passage and reforestation efforts throughout the watershed, to name only a few. In 1999, a new Anacostia Watershed Agreement was signed to strengthen the regional governmental commitment to Anacostia restoration. There are today more than 60 local, State and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration. And more than $100 million has been spent cleaning up the river. There is clearly much for which we can all be proud. But the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The Anacostia is still one of North America's most endangered and threatened rivers. It is designated one of three ``regions of concern'' for toxics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The legislation which we are introducing authorizes more than $200 million in Federal assistance over the next 10 years to restore the Anacostia. Of these funds, $170 million is authorized to address the biggest pollution problems in the watershed--storm water runoff and failing waste-water infrastructure. As the builder of much of the original infrastructure and a major user, the Federal Government has an important responsibility to help stem the flow of this pollution and comply with the Clean Water Act. The remaining funds will allow the Administrator of EPA, working together with an ``Anacostia Watershed Council'' of State and local officials, to develop a comprehensive environmental protection and resource management plan for the watershed, for several Federal agencies to join in the implementation of the plan. The Anacostia River suffers from centuries of impacts and changes. Once a healthy, thriving river, it is today severely degraded. This legislation is urgently needed if we are to achieve the goal of making the Anacostia and its tributaries swimmable and fishable again. It is my hope that provisions of this measure will be included in the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to commend Centennial High School in Howard County, MD, for its fine performance on this year's ``It's Academic'' quiz show. After many hours of practice and four rounds of competition, Centennial has emerged as the 2004-2005 Baltimore-area ``It's Academic'' champion. The team of Jeff Amoros, Michael Fasulo, Marin Lolic, and Seth Manoff, with the assistance of their coach John Cheek, took first place out of 81 teams that competed from both public and private schools across the State of Maryland. In its final match, Centennial defeated two formidable foes in Calvert Hall College High School and Oakland Mills High School. ``It's Academic'', which is telecast every Saturday morning during the school year on WJZ-TV, channel 13, has been quizzing Maryland students since 1961. In fact, according to the ``2005 Guinness Book of World Records'', it is the world's longest running quiz show. For Maryland students, ``It's Academic'' provides an opportunity to challenge not only their own knowledge of math, science, literature, government and history, but also how their knowledge stacks up against students around the State. This year, Centennial's team demonstrated enormous skill and erudition. Congratulations to Jeff, Michael, Marin, Seth and Coach Cheek on a wonderful accomplishment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on May 7, former Congressman Peter W. Rodino, Jr. died at his home in West Orange, NJ, at the age of 95. At the time of his death he was professor emeritus at the Seton Hall University School of Law, where he had continued to lecture until just a few months ago. He was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from New Jersey's 10th congressional district in 1948 and went on to serve 20 terms, retiring in 1989. Throughout his long career he faithfully served the people of his district, and our Nation. It was my great privilege to serve on the House Committee on the Judiciary under his chairmanship, and I shall remember him always as ``Chairman.'' In the Congress, Peter Rodino served on the House Committee on the Judiciary for 24 years before becoming its chairman, quite unexpectedly, in 1973. At just that time it fell to the Judiciary Committee to determine whether the President had acted in violation of fundamental principles of our Constitution and, if so, to undertake the first step in the impeachment procedures that the Constitution sets out. No one understood better than Peter Rodino the magnitude of the challenge. It was, he often said, an ``awesome responsibility.'' As a very junior Member of the House of Representatives, just beginning my second term, it was my great responsibility to serve on the Judiciary Committee under Chairman Rodino during the impeachment inquiry. In a speech on the floor of the House in February, 1974, he set the tone for the work the committee was about to undertake: ``Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of American people, and their children after them, will say: `That was the right course. There was no other way.' '' Chairman Rodino held the committee to those standards. As Michael T. Kaufman wrote in the New York Times on May 9, he proceeded with ``great patience, caution, enormous energy, and fairness above all.'' In his role as chairman, Peter Rodino saw himself as ``teacher, negotiator, leader and symbol,'' striving to achieve ``a spirit of fairness and bipartisanship.'' In this he was successful: members of the committee drew together over the course of the inquiry, approving three articles of impeachment on strong bipartisan votes and, ultimately, reaching unanimity on the need to move the impeachment process forward. Of his service during the impeachment inquiry, Chairman Rodino told his biographer, Gerald Pomper, ``I was just the same Peter Rodino I've been all the time from the very first day I came to the Congress.'' Indeed he was. Throughout his years in the Congress he worked hard, and he brought to his work both a bright and hopeful vision for our country and great skill as a legislator. His legislative achievements were remarkable: major contributions to the great Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s--he served as floor manager of the Civil Rights Act of 1966; passage of landmark fair housing and fair-employment practices legislation; immigration reform that overturned the decades-old system of rigid, country-based quotas. Later he wrote the Voting Rights Extension Act of 1982, and he played a leading role in establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It can be said of Peter Rodino that in his life he embraced the American experience in the 20th century. The child of Italian immigrants, born and raised in the Little Italy neighborhood in Newark, NJ, he earned his law degree over a period of 10 years by working days and taking classes at night. Well before Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into World War II, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, served in the North African and Italian campaigns, received one of the first battlefield commissions, was awarded the Bronze Star, and retired with the rank of captain. Upon leaving the Army, he entered the Congress; upon retiring from the Congress, he joined the faculty of the Seton Hall Law School. There he remained until his death, attentive to the end to his students and colleagues. He believed in our democratic institutions and their capacity to improve the lives of our people. ``There was not a single day of his professional life,'' according to the Dean of Seton Hall Law School, ``when he didn't carry a copy of the Constitution in his pocket.'' The country will forever be grateful to him. Chairman Rodino was remembered by his family, friends, colleagues at Seton Hall Law School and former colleagues in the U.S. House of Representative in a very moving ceremony at St. Lucy Church, Newark NJ, on May 16, 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the homily of the Reverend Nicholas S. Gengaro, Chaplain of the Seton Hall Law School, and the eulogy delivered by Paula A. Franzese, Peter W. Rodino at the Seton Hall Law School, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will be brief. I want to rise again in very strong support of the amendment that Senator Shelby the chairman of the Banking Committee has proposed, and also to underscore, as I just did in my discussion with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, that I support the Byrd amendment which is also before us, which encompasses inner-city rail as well as transit. The amendment offered by Chairman Shelby deals only with those items under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. The point I want to underscore is, this body unanimously passed, last year on October 1, the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. That bill authorized $3.5 billion in 3 years for the security of our Nation's mass transportation system, and of that amount $1.16 billion was scheduled for fiscal year 2006, which would begin to address the critical security needs that exist in the thousands of public transportation systems in our country. The amendment offered by Chairman Shelby seeks to bring the appropriation in line with the Senate-approved authorized level-- approved by the Senate unanimously, brought out of the Banking Committee unanimously. Clearly, after the tragic attack in London last Thursday, which has now claimed 52 lives and over 700 injured, we need to fully fund transit security at the Senate-authorized level. This body understood the problem last year. We established these authorization levels. We now need to provide the appropriations to carry through on the programs that are proposed to enhance transit security. In 2002, GAO found that over one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide were against transit systems. Yet the funding for transit and rail security has been grossly inadequate. Those systems have not been able to implement necessary security improvements, including those that have been identified by the Department of Homeland Security. The Baltimore Sun wrote in an editorial on Friday: Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has spent $18 billion on aviation security. Transit systems, which carry 16 times more passengers daily, have received about $250 million. That's a ridiculous imbalance. I could not agree more. There are obvious necessities that are needed--security cameras, radios, training, extra security personnel. Those are not extravagant requests. Let me give you one example right here in the Washington metropolitan area. Washington Metro's greatest security need is a backup control operations center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration in its initial security assessment then identified again by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security assessment. This critical need remains unaddressed because it has not been funded. We need to pass these amendments in order to provide the funding. The same situation exists in transit systems across the country. We must not make this mistake. We need to put the resources out there so the transit and rail systems across the Nation can begin to address the serious potential targets which exist for terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the chairman of the Banking Committee which deals with transit security, and I join with others in supporting the amendment that has been offered by Senator Byrd which encompasses not only that security but rail security as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.