Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act Amendments of 2005

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, for yielding me this time.

Here we are again, hopefully, to the Floor with what I fervently hope will not result in yet another extension of current law for our surface transportation program. That we do not have in place a 5-year or 6-year extension of our surface transportation programs is certainly not attributable to the Members of this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Both sides of the aisle have worked vigorously, Mr. Chairman, to craft a bill that meets the needs of America's reliance upon our highway and transit systems to move people and goods efficiently and effectively in America.

The very first version of this bill was introduced in the fall of 2003, in October, at $375 billion, the investment that the Department of Transportation recommended to the Congress and to the administration that the Nation needed to invest over the next 6 years, following on TEA-21, to address the needs of pavement condition, congestion and safety across America. We took them at their word. Together, we crafted a bill that reflected the $375 billion investment, and together, we introduced that bill under the leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska.

At the time we introduced that bill, gasoline was selling at $1.34 a gallon. Today, it is well over $2.04 across the Nation. Oil will soon be selling at $60 a barrel, according to current analysts' reports, and the price of gas will go higher. We are not getting any of the benefit of that increase in pricing here in America in our highway transit programs. The dollars are going overseas.

In an age in which we are so concerned about outsourcing of American jobs to low-wage countries, the one place that jobs are not outsourced is on our highway and transit program; the highway that is built in front of your

home, in your community, between communities, the transit systems that are built are built with American labor and American materials. We require American steel to go in the Federal highway program and into the transit program. We have strengthened the Buy America provisions in this legislation and that have existed since 1982.

You know, you cannot build a highway in Shanghai and put it in place in Peoria. It's put in place in America with American labor. Those are American jobs. We created 1,300,000 net new jobs in TEA-21, and with a $375 billion investment over the next 6 years, we would create 2 million net new jobs and $291 billion of total related net new economic activity in America.

But we are not here debating that bill, because the economic gurus downtown at the White House said, oh no, that is way too much. They do not understand this comes out of the Highway Trust Fund. It is a pay- as-you-go system. American drivers are paying for this system. It is the most successful initiative we have had, except for Social Security, in our whole government structure. Since 1956, the Highway Trust Fund invests your dollars with your purchase at the pump, and you drive away on good roads. It is just that simple. And this committee has been faithful and true to that principle since 1956, going on 50 years.

But when we got that message that, oh no, that is not the number, we scaled our bill back; you did not hear any partisan bickering. What you saw was bipartisan cooperation. We brought a much lower bill to the floor, the Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users, TEA-LU, and we took it through this House to the conference, where it stalled again over the level of investment that we need to make in America's transportation future. And it could not be resolved all the way through and up to the election, nor in the lame duck session afterward. So we are here again to make that effort.

Now, in the committee, we have agreed on the structure of the legislation, on the way in which those dollars are going to be invested, the programs, the allocated and allotted programs, the apportioned programs, and we bring to this body good investment in the future of transportation in America.

In safety alone, we invest $6 billion in the future of safe roads in America. In 1956, when the Highway Trust Fund was created and the interstate highway program launched, the projections were, if America did not move to a much safer highway system, a divided access controlled superhighway program, we would be killing 110,000 a year on America's roads. And because of the interstate highway, we are saving well over 50,000 lives a year.

We need to do better, however, and we can and will do better with the investments we are making in this legislation. For example, the $550 million investment in rural road safety. Forty-three percent of America's fatalities occur on rural roads. In our State of Minnesota, half of those fatalities are people from the metropolitan area driving in rural Minnesota who are killed on unsafe rural roads.

We need to make the investments to improve the quality of safety on our rural road system as well as in urban-suburban areas. We do that in this legislation. We make the right investments.

We need to move this bill forward, get it through this House. Unfortunately, we are delayed. And while discussions continue and negotiations continue on a term that is a term of art, not a term of law, over the scope and the percentage return on investment each State perceives it gets back from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, I hope that will be resolved today, and we can move on with the manager's amendment and settle the issue and go to conference.

Our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, has led us through political storms over this issue. He has been a steady hand at the helm, and I applaud his leadership and his firmness. I hope that we will resolve this matter expeditiously, bring the manager's amendment to the floor and then proceed to conference with the Senate.

This is a tight time frame. Current law expires the end of May. The Senate is not expected, the other body, forgive me, is not expected to take up their version of the bill until after the Easter recess. That would mean mid April before we even get to conference. That leaves a month or so to negotiate all the differences in policy between the two bills. I certainly do not relish the prospect of the two of us coming back to the House floor sometime in May and saying, sorry, we cannot get there, we have to have another extension of current law.

We need to move ahead now. The Sand & Gravel Institute is reporting 43 percent unemployment among their membership because States are not letting long-term contracts. The Concrete Pavement Association, the Asphalt Pavement Association are all reporting unemployment levels in excess of 40 percent among their members because States are not letting long-term contracts. We can settle that by getting this bill through the House, through conference, and to the President for signature. Even at this lower level of $284 billion, that will mean a significant advancement in the cause of transportation, in jobs, in economic vitality and productivity in America.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.

I have been advised that the administration has again sent a statement of administration policy drawing a line, the familiar term is drawing a line in the sand, but in the context in which we are discussing I would say a line in the asphalt or a line in the concrete. I hope it is wet concrete, that ``should the obligation or net authorization levels in the final bill exceed $283.9 billion, the President's senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill.''

I am not quite clear who senior advisors are. We have not heard from the Secretary of Transportation. I thought he was a senior adviser. He has not said anything about this. He has not sent any message up here. Who are these shadowy figures? What is the $283.9 billion, not 284? Is this the basement version, the discount version of transportation? So we just cannot squeak over 283.9?

That is a magical number picked out of thin air. There is no justification for this number. We can invest more. The Highway Trust Fund will support more. Do not take it on my word; I have only been doing this for 40 years, but do not take my word. Take the Congressional Budget Office. If TEA-LU provides $283.9 billion, the Highway Trust Fund balance will be $17.5 billion in 5 years. That is $7.5 billion in highway account balances and a $10 billion surplus in the transit account.

We are not being honest with the American public. We tell them: You buy the gas, you pay the tax, it goes into the trust, and we build the roads, we build the transit systems.

Now, last year, in the course of the campaign, a trucker in Missouri asked President Bush, ``My family is involved in trucking here in Missouri, and I was wondering what you, as President, could do with Federal money to upgrade our highways? Our trucks are falling apart because our highways are falling apart.''

The President said, ``Yes. I appreciate that. We are in the midst of a discussion on a highway bill. There will be a highway bill, and just want to make sure that the highway bill honors the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is set up so that we use the money from the gasoline tax and not general revenues.'' He understands it, ``and I think it's very important that we guard that aspect of trust, keep the trust of the Trust Fund.'' He understands that, too.

Well, why not, Mr. President, tell your senior advisors to accept what the committee is doing, move ahead, let us get over this $283.9? Let us get to $375 billion. Let us do what is right for America as both sides of the aisle in the House and the Senate have agreed last year and again this year that is where we need to go, not building a $17 billion surplus in the Highway Trust Fund.

We are failing to keep trust with the American people. That is what this is about. This is not a partisan issue. This is trust with the American people. That Highway Trust Fund is one of the most successful investments we have made, except for Social Security, in the history of this country. It is pay-as-you-go, keep faith with the American people. No other country has anything like it, and America is productive because our roadways are productive.

When we do not keep pace, when we allow congestion to suffocate movement of people and goods, then it costs America. UPS, for every 5- minute delay, costs them $40 million nationally.

We can fix that with the right investments that this committee has fashioned, and we need to move forward with a more robust bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that hopeful note. We are creeping in the right direction, at least.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very deep-seated feeling of opposition to this amendment. It has nothing to do with the gentleman, the offerer; but these series of attempts to undermine hours of service in the trucking sector, we went through a very extensive debate several years ago to create the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The idea was to establish within the Department of Transportation an entity whose role would be to examine the evidence in all of the many sectors of the economy, evaluate the needs for safety and then publish rules, not one rule but rules that would address each separate sector of the driving public on the economic side of driving.

The initial rules published by the Motor Carrier Safety Administration were very complex, very difficult to understand, and raised a great deal of animosity. They went back and redid the rule; and now because some sector did not get their way in the rulemaking process, they are coming to the Congress saying, fix it by law.

Look at what this proposal will do. Under the previous rule, truck drivers had only 8 hours off duty. But look at that 8 hours. We had extensive hearings on this subject. A driver comes home from his or her job, gets a shower, something to eat, maybe spends a little time with his or her family. When I was a student in college, I roomed at a house where the breadwinner was a long-distance truck driver. I saw this happening before my eyes. I see it happening to families throughout any congressional district. I have talked with those on the road. You get a little bit of time with family members, and maybe they get 5 hours of rest, and then they are back on the job again.

Unlike the inner-city bus drivers who work on regular schedules, a wide sector of the truck-driving public have irregular hours. They can work backward rotating shifts, 7 to 3 one week, 3 to 11, 11 to 7; and they never get consistent sleep. The human body has not changed in 50,000 years. We still need adequate rest.

The Department of Transportation has conducted numerous studies of fatigue among pilots, among locomotive engineers, among truck drivers, among bus operators, and found in every case they are not getting sufficient rest.

As each one of these cases comes up, it is we just have a little different situation here. Look under this amendment. A driver could start work at 8 in the morning and work until midnight with only 2 hours off, and then be expected to be back to work at 8 the next morning. It is not in the public interest. I do not care what the truck driver wants, to make a few extra bucks or get the time-and-a-half for overtime; that is not in the public interest. Somebody is going to die as a result of driver fatigue. We should not allow this chipping away at safety.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The legal effect of the gentleman's amendment, whether he understands it or has been wisely counseled, is exactly as I described it. A worker can start at 8 in the morning, work until midnight, have 2 hours off, and be called back at 8 the next morning. That is the legal effect of the words of this amendment. It is not in the public interest to put drivers on the road with so little sleep. That is what this is all about, about safety on our highways. Five thousand people a year die because of car-truck crashes, and more than half of those truck-car crashes are as a result of driver fatigue, truck driver fatigue. We must not exacerbate the problem, and we should defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is another example of chipping away at hours of service. We have already had a discussion in the course of debate on the previous amendment. We already have provided for exemptions for the agricultural community. Our committee held hearings, acknowledged the concerns, listened to the views of people on both sides of the issue, and we have included in the bill an exemption for the agricultural community with an exemption of a 100-air mile radius.

Now, I do not know what the argument is for a little bit more or a few more miles. There has not been any case made of what this dividing line is. In fact, 100 miles is a fairly arbitrary number in itself.

But, it may relate to the time it takes to drive 100 miles. That used to be the rule in railroading; that after 100 miles, the locomotive engineer was off duty and could get some rest. Well, maybe that is the issue here.

The fact is, we have made an adjustment in the context of this bill, and we recognize that there are unique seasonal considerations in the agricultural sector, and we have provided for that in this legislation. There is no need for this amendment. It is an excessive chipping away at safety.

I would just suggest to the gentleman, since we have already made an adjustment in H.R. 3, the underlying bill for the agricultural sector, that if the gentleman would be willing to withdraw the amendment, not press it to a vote, that we would then have the flexibility to work continuously, perhaps even as we get to the manager's amendment or as we get into conference to further hear the gentleman and his concerns and resolve them. I would make that offer to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that and give him my word and the chairman my word that we will work together and understand his concerns better, in more depth, and find a way to come to a resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Now, in contrast to the previous amendment, which is somewhat technical and which I do believe we can work out an understanding as we come to a deeper grasp of the concerns of the offeror of the previous amendment, this is not a simple technical correction. This is a serious assault on the motor carrier safety rule. It goes beyond simply seasonal exemptions.

As we worked our way through the bill last year and again this year, we came to agreements on this hours of service issue. And we worked out language in H.R. 3 that provides exemption for 28,000 carriers. The pending amendment would include live animals, live fish, animal feed, products of animal origin, meat, fish, seafood, tobacco products, meat, logs, livestock, lumber products, processed food, beverages, 42,000 exemptions, 42,000 carriers who no longer would have to abide by the hours of services rules, within a 100 air-mile radius.

There is no justification for that. This is a quantitative and dangerously quantitative departure from the committee agreement, and must not be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Kansas is a very distinguished and decent and a well-thinking member of our committee. He has offered many thoughtful amendments. We have on the committee worked together to respect the unique needs in agriculture during planting time, harvest time, within a reasonable distance of the point of production and endpoint of distribution. The purpose of the language in the committee bill was to ensure that products grown and harvested get from the farm to market in timely fashion. I understand that. I have got large sectors of my congressional district that are intensely agricultural. We want that corn and soybeans to get to market in timely fashion. But in yielding a yard to the industry, they now want the whole ball field. The amendment goes way beyond what we understood. They are including processed products, processed foods, beverages. I asked the Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Safety Administration to tell me what is included, how many additional carriers? Forty-two thousand. What is the driving record of the carriers who would be covered by this amendment? They say they have a crash rate 20 percent higher than current agriculture exemption carriers. If we just limited this to the current agricultural sector provided in the exemption in our bill, we are fine with that, but this goes far beyond what is reasonable and responsible, whether intentioned or unintentioned. It is an assault upon safety in the form presented. I cannot accept it. We might find a way to work additionally with dropping out some of these pieces as we go forward in the manager's amendment or in conference, but in its current form, unless the gentleman chooses to withdraw it, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the statements made by the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, very thoughtful presentation; but I just remind colleagues that when Congress enacted ISTEA in 1991, the legislation froze size and weight of large trucks, commercial motor vehicles. That is almost 14 years in the gentleman's State. CMVs can operate at a length of 65 feet. This amendment would raise it to 81 feet 6 inches.

The original rationale was to allow custom harvesters, those who have unique requirements, unique needs. I represent an agricultural area among the great diversity of my district, and there we do not have wheat but do have soybeans and corn. The idea was to allow the harvester to pull a combine and header, that is in the words of the amendment, exclusively in harvesting the wheat.

Now we see his amendment and it creeps, wheat, soybeans and milo. Each of these crops has different harvest times. So, if the length exemption is adopted, we will have these exemptions in place for much of the year.

They have had 14 years of working with this. This is the first time the issue has come before the committee. I do not understand what the need is except that they want to do it, but the language would allow these vehicles to operate basically on any route in Nebraska with a State or U.S. Route shield language. That is serious. That is placing serious safety problems on the Nation's roadway.

Try to pass one of those vehicles in a VW or Ford Pinto, if you still have one, or any other small vehicle. It is nerve-wracking and dangerous. I have tried it and I do not think it is safe; and as the figures show, 5,000 people a year die in car-truck crashes. We should not open the floodgates for rollback of a critical safety provision now in the regulatory process.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close. I am the only speaker. If the gentleman wishes to conclude his amendment, I will make the closing remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is true that other States have the right to operate longer-length vehicles. They were grandfathered in in 1991. I like being a grandfather but of very small children, not of very large trucks. Had I been in the leadership position in 1991, I did oppose it, I did object to it, but I was not in a leadership position to stop it, and we would have stopped it.

This is not a good move. This is not in the public interest. The adjoining States ought not to have longer vehicles; and if this amendment is done, then we might as well just throw the motor carrier safety rules away and let everybody drive longer vehicles, heavier vehicles at any time of the year and see further endangerment of safety on the roadways.

This well-intentioned amendment, it is certainly initiated by farmers who feel they are going to be able to move their goods to market at lower cost, more efficiently, but at great risk to life and to the public safety.

So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague Senator Bennett to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.

I'd like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-fifth of these roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, seventy-eight percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.

About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian Reservation Road System. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA- 21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.

The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.

For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley County is either tribal or federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.

In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.

The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.

Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy or snowy. If the school buses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.

These children are literally being left behind.

Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.

In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million was made available each year to be shared equally among the three States. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by school buses.

This program has been very successful. For the last six years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.

The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States. The text of the bill is identical to that passed last year by the full Senate in H.R. 3550, the SAFETEA bill.

I believe that continuing this program for six more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.

I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. The Senate already passed this legislation last year. I ask all Senators to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.

I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year and with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation bill.

I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Otero, Lincoln, Torrance, Guadalupe, and Quay Counties.

The purpose of this legislation is to focus attention on the need to upgrade U.S. Highway 54 to four lanes. I believe improving the transportation infrastructure will help attract good jobs to South, Central, and Eastern New Mexico.

I am honored to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Roberts, as the lead cosponsor of the bill. I am also pleased to have Senators Inhofe as an original cosponsor. In addition, Representatives Udall (NM), Lucas, and Pearce are introducing this bill today on the House side.

Our bill designates U.S. Highway 54 from the border with Mexico at the Bridge of the Americas in El Paso, TX, through New Mexico, and Oklahoma to Wichita, KS, as the Southwest Passage Initiative for Regional and Interstate Transportation, or SPIRIT, corridor. Congress has already included Highway 54 as part of the National Highway System. This bill adds the SPIRIT Corridor to Congress's list of High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System.

About half of the 700-mile-long SPIRIT corridor is in New Mexico and another 200 miles of it are in Kansas. Our goal in asking Congress to designate SPIRIT as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System is to help focus attention on the need for a complete four-lane upgrade of the route from El Paso to Wichita. When completed, the route will link rural areas in the four States to major market centers.

I continue to believe strongly in the importance of highway infrastructure for economic development in my state. Even in this age of the new economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of New Mexico.

It is well known that regions with four-lane highways more readily attract out-of-state visitors and new jobs. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety of a four-lane divided highway.

In New Mexico, U.S. 54 is a fairly level route, bypassing New Mexico's major mountain ranges. The route also traverses some of New Mexico's most dramatic scenery, including three of the state's popular Scenic Byways. One is the Mesalands Scenic Byway in Guadalupe, San Miguel and Quay Counties, incorporating the beautiful tablelands known as El Llano Estacado. Another is the State's newest byway, La Frontera de Llano, which follows highway 39 from Logan to Abbott in Harding County, including the spectacular Canadian River Canyon and the Kiowa National Grasslands. The third byway is the historic Route 66, which crosses Highway 54 from Santa Rosa to Tucumcari.

The SPIRIT corridor passes through Alamogordo, home of the New Mexico Museum of Space History and gateway to the stunning White Sands National Monument.

Highway 54 is also important to our Nation from the perspective of national security. The route directly serves Fort Bliss, the White Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air Force Base. It also passes through the Nation's breadbasket as well as some of the Nation's most important oil and gas fields.

The route of the SPIRIT corridor starts at Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, home of one the largest concentrations of manufacturing in the border region. As a result of increased trade under NAFTA, commercial border traffic is now much higher at the border crossings in El Paso, Texas, and Santa Teresa, New Mexico. In New Mexico, truck traffic from the border has risen to over 1000 per day and is expected to triple in the next twenty years.

The SPIRIT corridor is perfectly situated to serve international trade and promote economic development along its entire route. The route provides direct connections to four major Interstate Highways: I- 10, 1-35, I-40, and 1-70. SPIRIT is also the shortest route between Chicago and El Paso shaving 137 miles off the major alternative.

Though much of U.S. 54 is currently only two lanes, traffic has been rising dramatically along the entire route since NAFTA was implemented. In New Mexico, total daily traffic levels are nearing 10,000 and are projected to rise to 30,000, with trucks making up 35 percent of the total. In Oklahoma, traffic levels are up to 6,500 per day--40 percent of which are commercial trucks. These traffic statistics clearly reflect the SPIRIT corridor's attraction to commercial and passenger drivers.

New Mexicans recognize the importance of efficient roads to economic development and safety. I have long supported my State's efforts to complete the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54. The State Department of Transportation rates the project a high priority for New Mexico. The four-lane upgrade of the first 56-mile segment from the Texas border to Alamogordo was completed in 2002. Two more sections in New Mexico remain to be upgraded: 163 miles from Tularosa, north through Carrizozo, Corona, and Vaughn, to Santa Rosa and 50 miles from Tucumcari to the Texas border near Nara Visa in Quay County. This corridor is currently a two-lane facility with no shoulders, no passing zones and various deficient areas. The cost to four-lane these two segments is estimated at $420 million.

I am pleased Governor Richardson has set aside over $130 million as part of the New Mexico's GRIP initiative to upgrade key portions of the route between Tularosa and Santa Rosa. I am committed to working with State to secure the funding required to complete New Mexico's four-lane upgrade as soon as possible. I am pleased the other states are also moving quickly to four-lane their portion of the route.

Once the SPIRIT corridor is designated, New Mexico will have four high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. The other three are the Ports-to-Plains corridor, the Camino Real Corridor, and the East West Transamerica Corridor. These four trade corridors, as well as our close proximity to the border, strongly underscore the vital role New Mexico plays in our Nation's interstate and international transportation network.

The SPIRIT project has broad grassroots support. Most of the cities, counties, and chambers of commerce all the way from Wichita to El Paso have passed resolutions of support for the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54 along the entire corridor.

I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 54 is vital to the continued economic development for all of the communities along the SPIRIT corridor in New Mexico. I again thank Senators Roberts and Inhofe for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all senators will join us in support of this important legislation. It is my hope that our bill can pass quickly this year or be included when the Senate again considers the reauthorization of a six-year surface transportation bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill is a major step forward in making our military's Survivor Benefit Program fairer, more equitable, and more in keeping with our Nation's promise to our service members and their families. The bill combines two important fixes to the SBP. The first corrects a serious inequity in SBP that currently requires over a hundred thousand older military survivors to pay extra into the system for the same benefits as more recent enrollees. I have been fighting to fix this problem since the last Congress and am confident that this year we will succeed in providing basic fairness to these survivors.

This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar deduction of the dependency indemnity compensation, DIC, which the VA pays to survivors, from SBP annuities. This policy is effectively a tax on military survivors at a time when so many of our brave men and women in uniform are dying in Iraq and their families are struggling to get by. Senator Nelson has long fought to eliminate this unfairness, and I am proud to stand with him today in introducing this comprehensive legislation.

The legislation that I introduced in the last Congress and which is included in this bill eliminates a major inequity in the SBP arising from a 1999 congressional act limiting the time required to pay into the plan. That act deemed retirees who are at least 70 years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least 30 years to be fully ``paid up'' for the purpose of receiving benefits. This was an important piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, Congress only made it effective in 2008. The result was that earlier enrollees--those who enrolled between 1972 and 1978--were forced to pay into SBP longer than enrollees from 1978 or later, up to 6 extra years of premiums. In other words, they had to pay in longer for the same benefits.

This inequity was further magnified by the fact that those earlier retirees paid much higher SBP premiums--10 percent of retired pay--for two full decades, until 1992, when the premium was reduced to 6.5 percent of retired pay.

This bill, by making the ``paid up'' provision effective this year, will finally grant these survivors--the widows and widowers of the Greatest Generation--the same benefits of those who enrolled in SBP in subsequent years. It will provide basic fairness to 135,000 survivors and allow us to honor their sacrifice and that of their loved ones.

This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar reduction of SBP benefits by the amount received in dependency and indemnity compensation. Under current law, the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause is entitled to $993 a month--for a survivor without children--from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the surviving spouse's SBP annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC.

SBP and DIC payments are paid for different reasons. SBP, in most cases, is elected and purchased by the retiree to provide a portion of retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by his or her uniformed service. To offset DIC--which we provide to the families of those who have lost their life in the service of their country--from annuities earned and paid for, is blatantly unfair.

This bill has the broadest possible support among organizations representing our troops and their families, including Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women Officers Associated, American Logistics Association, AMVETS, Army Aviation Association of America, Associations of Military Surgeons of the United States, Association of the U.S. Army, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, CWO and WO Association U.S. Coast Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., Fleet Reserve Association, Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National Guard Association of the U.S., National Military Family Association, National Order of Battlefield Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Naval Reserve Association, Navy League of the U.S., Noncommissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Reserve Officers Association, Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, Military Chaplains Association of the USA, Retired Enlisted Association, United Armed Forces Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, VFW, and Veterans' Widows International Network. The Military Coalition has described this bill as a top legislative goal, and it is my expectation that it will have strong support in the Senate.

It is vital that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military as well as their families. The widows and widowers of our service members, those who are serving now and those who served us in earlier times, are owed our deepest gratitude. But in the face of their sacrifice, there is more that we should do. We cannot ever fully compensate them for their loss. But we can ensure that the benefits that they have earned are fair and just.

Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy and Smith and twenty-seven of our colleagues today in introducing a very important piece of legislation, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act.

This bill would prevent any student from seeing a reduction in the Pell grants under recent changes by the Bush administration to the formula used to calculate student aid eligibility. On December 23, 2004--just 2 days before the Christmas holiday, I might note--the Department of Education published updates to the allowance for state and other taxes that is used by students and their families to calculate their expected family contribution, or EFC, to college tuition. The EFC is the amount that students and their families are expected to contribute towards college in a given year.

Changes in a student's ``expected family contribution'' have a direct impact on that student's eligibility for a variety of types of financial aid. Simply put, as a student's expected family contribution goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down.

The Administration's changes to the tax tables have the effect of cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which more than five million students nationwide rely. It is projected that, as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in their Pell grants and another 89,000 will become ineligible for Pell grant assistance.

Not only will these changes drastically affect Pell grant eligibility and aid, but because the EFC formula is used to calculate eligibility for other forms of Federal aid, including federal student loans, as well as private institutional and state aid, these changes will cut practically all forms of student aid. Unfortunately, the Department's changes to the state and local tax allowance will increase the EFC for nearly all American families and students. While no New Jersey students are projected to lose assistance under this year's proposed cuts, they were projected to lose assistance under similar cuts proposed in 2003. I am very concerned that New Jersey students could be hurt going forward if the administration continues to update the tax tables based on outdated tax information.

Certainly, I do not disagree that the tax tables used to determine EFC, which have not been updated since 1988, may need to be revised to reflect current state and local tax burden. However, the administration's proposal does not reflect current tax levels. The updates reduce the credit that families receive for paying state and local taxes at a time in which they are actually paying more taxes. For example, the administration's new tax tables are based on Fiscal Year 2002 state tax information. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, though, since FY 2002, states have enacted $14.1 billion in tax and fee increases. Again, because the administration's proposal is based on outdated tax information, it does not take into account these substantial increases in State tax burden.

In fact, the General Accounting Office issued a report last week that found that the Department of Education's procedures for revising the tax tables and the formula the Department used are seriously flawed. The GAO report, entitled Student Financial Aid: Need Determination Could be Enhanced through Improvements in Education's Estimate of Applicants' State Tax Payments, states, ``Education could not provide us with written procedures guiding staff on the routine steps necessary to update the tax allowance, nor did it maintain detailed records of its efforts to obtain data.'' The report goes on to say of the data the Department used to revise the tables,

As a result of certain limitations of the SOI [statistics

of income] dataset for the purpose of calculating the

allowance and problems with how Education uses this dataset,

the current state and other tax allowance may not fully

reflect the amount of taxes paid by students and families.

The dataset itself is not ideally suited for calculating the

allowance because it is limited to financial data from those

who itemize their taxes, does not include state and local

taxes, and is several years older than the income information

reported by students and families on the FAFSA.

The report further notes that because the SOI compiles data only for those who itemize their tax deductions, who may pay different tax rates than non-itemizers, the data is further flawed. The GAO goes on to suggest improvements to the Department's calculations and the data they use.

These changes also come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically at double digit rates, and students and working families are straining to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at a four-year public university costs an average of $11,354, $824 more than last year and $1775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent a year. In fact, according to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public institutions in New Jersey has increased by more than 40 percent since the 1999-2000 school year. In some states they've increased by more than 60 percent in the last five years.

To really understand these numbers, though, it's necessary to look at the people who are struggling to afford to go to college. To that end, I would like to read a couple of personal stories about the importance of the Pell grant program to a college-bound student and a student struggling to afford college now.

One student writes,

I am lucky enough to be attending a top-rate University and

receiving a quality education, but I rely on many federal

loans and aid, including a Pell Grant, in order to remain

where I am. When President Bush decided not to fully fund

Pell Grants, he left me and many others in a precarious

position. My Pell grant is still pending and I really am

counting on it to cover some of my basic expenses; it will be

a hardship until it comes--or worse if it doesn't come in

full. The President says he's an advocate for young people

with his dubious social security plans, but he leaves us

behind with his non-commitment to higher education.

A mother who fears she will no longer be able to afford to send her son to school writes,

I've saved money from the day my son was born so that he

may attend the college of his dreams. He is a gifted musician

and was awarded scholarships to attend Berklee in Boston.

With the help of the Pell Grant and other student loans, he

is now a freshman there and I'm proud to say is doing very

well. However, I am worried that with Bush having lowered the

income standard for Pell, Timmy may lose his grant and there

won't be enough money saved for him to stay in school. I

would like to give him the opportunity to pursue his dreams

and let his talent take him where it may. I see Bush cutting

programs from the have nots to give to the haves. How many

dreams is he going to destroy and how many more programs is

he going to cut?''

It's wrong, to cut $300 million--a small price to pay to ensure that low-income families can afford to send their children to college--from this program. And it's even worse to cut aid to 1.4 million families based on faulty calculations.

A college education today is essential to survival in our competitive marketplace. Not only does our economy thrive on an educated workforce, but also those who are educated and as a result are gainfully employed contribute enormously to our tax base. I am willing to venture that the costs of the Pell grant program are more than paid back by those who were able to go to attend college because of a Pell grant and today are productive, tax-paying citizens.

The Senate must prevent these cuts from becoming a reality. Thirty Senators stand behind the legislation I introduce today a bipartisan group of thirty Senators, I might add.

I hope that we can put politics aside and pass this legislation immediately to prevent any student from losing Pell grant assistance. Finally, I strongly urge the administration to take a close look at the GAO report and to reform the flawed system they have used to revise the tax tables.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill Senator Dodd and I are introducing today. This is a bill about children, and it covers an issue that is difficult to think about or talk about, but one that is critical to many children and their families in our Nation.

What I am talking about is what we can do when a child develops a life-threatening or terminal illness. How do we make sure we do everything in our power to make a sick child as comfortable as possible and as happy as possible--everything in our power to ease their suffering--when that child is terminally ill. We have a pressing need for comprehensive, compassionate, continuous care for children who are facing death as a result of serious illness.

No parent or family member ever expects a child to die. With today's modern medicine and research advances, it is easy to think that only older people die, but, tragically, we all know that is not the case. That is why today we are introducing the Compassionate Care for Children Act, a bill we introduced previously in the 108th Congress along with Representative Deborah Pryce in the House. This legislation is an effort to help ensure that very sick children receive a continuum of care and that young lives do not end in preventable pain or fear or sadness.

Every year, over 55,000 children die in the United States. Some children will die suddenly and unexpectedly--in a car accident, by drowning, or fire, or by choking. Some may even be murdered. Others, though--thousands of children, actually--will be diagnosed with life- threatening illnesses or diseases that might eventually, over a period of time, take away these children's lives. Children with such illnesses are in and out of hospitals and clinics. They receive chemotherapy and radiation treatments. They might undergo multiple surgeries. They might have nurses and doctors poking and prodding at them nearly all the time. Some of these children are old enough to realize that they might die if the treatments for their diseases don't work. Others are too young to understand that reality.

One little girl--Liza--knew she was going to die. Shortly after her fourth birthday, she was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. For the next year, Liza's parents explored every possible medical option for her and every possible treatment. They took her to doctor after doctor after doctor, and they had access to the most cutting-edge therapies available to treat Liza's disease. Nothing seemed to work. At the age of five, Liza began to ask her mother what would come next, and whether she would soon die after her bone marrow transplant--her last chance for a cure--had failed.

Once the medical treatments had failed, doctors had little else to offer Liza. There was no discussion, tragically, about end-of-life care at the hospital for this little child. No one wanted to admit that they were out of

treatment options--that there was no cure--that she wasn't going to get better, have her life restored and her health restored--that she wasn't going to grow up and become an adult and have her own children someday. There was no discussion of that. No one in that hospital wanted to talk with Liza about death, even though this little girl pleaded with them to do so.

Liza's mother told the Washington Post that Liza asked her oncologist to tell her when death was near. This little five-year-old girl asked her doctor to tell her when she was going to die. Yet, on the final night of her life, as this little child lay dying in her mother's arms, near her father and her older sister, Liza asked, ``Why didn't the doctor call to tell me?''

Liza's parents were able to get some hospice care for their daughter during the last three months of her life. Tragically, fewer than 10 percent of children who die in the United States ever receive any sort of hospice care. When children like Liza are terminally ill, parents are forced to make decisions for their children under extremely emotional and stressful conditions. The decisions that confront these parents are ones that they never, of course, expected to have to make. Parents want what is best for their children. They want their children to get better and be healthy. They want their children to be pain free. They want their children to receive comfort and care when they are sick.

God forbid that parents find out their children are very sick--so sick they are never going to get better--so sick there are no more treatments and no more cures--and so sick they know their children are going to die. Those parents will try to do everything imaginable and everything possible in their power to help their children and make them comfortable--pain-free and happy in their remaining days.

Mr. President, we have an obligation to help those parents. Children with life-threatening diseases and illnesses require special medical attention to make their shortened lives more comfortable. We know that. Yet, despite that knowledge, the fact is, current federal law and regulations do not take into consideration the special care needs of a gravely ill or dying child. In fact, these federal laws and regulations get in the way of taking care of these children.

The legislation we are introducing today would help correct the deficiencies in current law and help sick children facing possible death live more comfortably and live with dignity. It would help them receive the comprehensive care they deserve and the comprehensive care we would expect for our own children.

Let me take a few moments to explain what our bill actually does. First, it offers grants so doctors and nurses can receive training and education to enable them to better understand these issues and to help them provide end-of-life care for these kids. The goal of these grants is to improve the quality of care terminally ill children receive. One of the ways we do this is to make sure doctors and nurses truly understand these issues so they can provide the care and be better informed. Our bill also provides money for the National Institutes of Health to conduct research in pain and symptom management in children. This research is critically important to improving the type of care that dying children receive.

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 89 percent of children dying of cancer die experiencing ``a lot or a great deal'' of pain and suffering. This does not have to happen. We can change that, and we must. This is simply not acceptable. Research has to be done so that children will not suffer needlessly.

In addition to grants, the second piece of our bill changes the way care is delivered to children with life-threatening illnesses. Right now, doctors, hospitals, and parents have to overcome significant insurance and eligibility barriers to enroll a dying child in hospice. First, to qualify for hospice, a doctor must certify that a child has six months or less to live. The problem with this ``six-month rule'' is that it is harder for a doctor to determine the life expectancy of a sick child than it is to determine the life expectancy of a sick adult or elderly person. A child dying of cancer, for example, may die in six months or six years, making that child ineligible for hospice care that would ensure a comfortable life while that child is alive. It is very difficult many times to estimate how long that child is going to live. This very rigid six-month predictability rule, which denies care, is very inhumane for these kids. It is wrong, and we have to change that rule.

According to Dr. Joanne Hilden and Dr. Dan Tobin, ``Sick children are still growing, which is a biological process very much like healing. So, when a child is diagnosed with illness, such as cancer or heart disease, he or she is much more likely to be cured than an adult.'' Simply put, diseases progress differently in children than adults, and children with terminal diseases get lost in the health care system designed for adults--a health care system that does not take into consideration the special needs of children.

Furthermore, the current system does not allow a patient to receive curative and palliative care simultaneously. In other words, current law does not allow doctors to continue trying life-prolonging treatments--treatments that could cure an illness or extend a life--and also at the same time provide palliative care to that patient. That means that current law does not allow the doctors to go in to provide typical hospice care where you make that child comfortable and do all the things to alleviate the pain and at the same time try to save the child's life.

That is wrong. That is simply wrong. That presents a parent with a horrible choice--a choice that no parent should ever have to make. That is tragic. Palliative care offers a continuum of care--care that involves counseling to families and patients about how to confront death--care that involves making the patient comfortable in his or her sickest hours--care that acknowledges that death is a real possibility.

Federal law requires a person who wishes to receive end-of-life care to discontinue receiving curative or life-prolonging treatment. This should not be an either/or decision for parents. I don't know of any parent who would give up trying to cure a sick child when there was any chance that child might be saved. They should not be put in this position.

Current law places parents in impossible positions. We simply must fix this. End-of-life care should be integrated with curative care so that parents, children, and doctors have access to a range of benefits and services. As I said earlier, palliative care should not be confined to the dying. It should be available to any child who is seriously ill.

That is why our bill creates Medicare and private market demonstration programs to remove these barriers, making it simpler and easier for doctors and parents to make end-of-life decisions for children. The demonstration program would allow children to receive curative and palliative care concurrently. This means children can continue to receive treatment and life-prolonging care while receiving palliative care at the same time. The demonstration program also removes the six-month rule so children can receive palliative care benefits at the time of diagnosis.

I would like to take a moment to tell my colleagues about another girl--Rachel Ann. Rachel Ann was a little girl who did receive palliative care from the time she was diagnosed with a grave heart problem. Rachel Ann had a heart that doctors describe as ``incompatible with life.'' Most babies with heart malformations like Rachel Ann die within a matter of days after birth. Rachel Ann's parents were devastated and distraught to see their tiny baby connected to a sea of wire and tubes, clinging to life.

Rachel Ann's parents were referred to a pediatric hospice and decided to bring their daughter home from the hospital so she could experience life with her family, surrounded by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends at home. Rachel Ann's parents say she seemed truly happy at home. She smiled and wiggled in response to voices and being held. Her brothers doted on their baby sister.

Rachel Ann was able to spend her life at home in comfort with her family. She lived for 42 days and her family was able to make every single moment count. On Christmas day, after spending the morning with her family, Rachel Ann passed away.

Fortunately, Rachel Ann and her family were able to spend as much time

together as possible with Rachel Ann as comfortable as possible. Her brothers were able to know their sister and to talk with hospice professionals about what was happening to her. Rachel Ann's parents and grandparents also were able to talk about her condition with hospice professionals and maintained an active role in her care. There was a support system in place for this family.

The terminal illness of a child is an incredibly difficult thing to confront for a parent and family. No one wants to think about children dying. No one wants to believe that children suffer, especially in this age of great medical advances. It is a horrible situation. But, it is one that we must face. We can always do more to improve the care that our children receive. We should continue to support research and finding cures for the diseases and illnesses from which children suffer. But, until those cures are found, and as long as children die from these diseases, we must provide care and support for a dying child. We have an obligation to provide that care and that support.

The bill we are introducing today will be an important step in this direction. It will provide tools and support networks to help grieving families in their time of need. It is the right thing to do, and I encourage my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2005, the companion to legislation authored by Representative Radanovich.

This legislation would assist the Boy Scout Sequoia Council in taking ownership of part of the land on which Camp Chawanakee sits. By authorizing the transfer of ownership of part of the camp land to the Boy Scouts, we will help make Chawanakee a permanent member of the Fresno Community, and an asset that youth for generations to come can enjoy and benefit from.

Specifically, the bill would authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner as follows:

The landowner would receive 160 acres, 145 of which are submerged, on Shaver Lake. In exchange, the Forest Service would receive $50,000 and an 80 acre inholding that the landowner owns in the Sierra National Forest.

The Forest Service transfer to the landowner is conditional upon his conveyance of the parcel to the Boy Scouts within 4 months to benefit Camp Chawanakee.

Over the years, well over 250,000 youths and leaders from California, Nevada and Arizona have attended the Boy Scouts' Camp Chawanakee. Recently, summer camp attendance has exceeded 3,000 Scouts. While other camps in California have closed in recent years, Camp Chawanakee has grown to become one of the premier Scouting camps in the Nation.

I applaud Congressman George Radanovich's commitment to this issue and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senators Corzine and Kennedy as a cosponsor of the bill Ensuring College Access for All Americans that restores cuts to the Federal Pell Grant Program for millions of students nationwide.

Federal Pell grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education.

These grants provide nearly $12.8 billion to help about 5.3 million low-income students attend college.

However, approximately 89,000 students currently eligible for a Pell grant will lose it, while an additional 1.3 million students will see their grants reduced by as much as $100 to $300 due to cuts in the Federal Pell Grant Program.

In California, nearly 150,000 low-income students will see their federal Pell grants decrease or disappear.

These cuts have a huge impact on students at California's public colleges and universities.

Within the University of California system, almost half of the 46,000 Pell grant recipients who attend one of the eight UC campuses will receive reduced grants and about 500 students who receive $400 a year will lose their grants completely.

On December 23, 2004, the Department of Education issued a proposal that will cut $300 million from the Federal Pell Grant Program.

The proposal updates State and local tax tables used to determine families' expected contribution towards college cost in a given year resulting in students and their families being expected to contribute more for college expenses.

These changes, which use Fiscal Year 2002 State and local data, reduce the credit that families receive for paying State and local taxes at a time when they are actually paying more taxes.

Senators Corzine and Kennedy's bill ensures that no student loses their Pell grant or sees a reduction in assistance under the Department of Education's proposal to update State and local tax tables.

It would simply ``hold harmless'' any student who stands to lose under the new proposal, so that no student would see a reduction in their Pell grant. Those students in the States that stand to gain would still benefit from the new tax tables.

It is imperative that cuts to this important student aid program be restored so that students can continue to receive their Pell grants that they are eligible for.

I recently received a letter from one my constituents from Chino, CA, a parent who is very concerned about the cuts to the Pell grant program. The letter said:

This would result in millions of families, many of whom

depend on financial aid including Pell grants, such as my

children in college, losing all or part of their federal

support. . . . this affects us all and our children's future.

A college student from Contra Costa County in California wrote:

The amount of my Pell grant will not cover the cost of

supplies that I need for the semester. . . . my parents

cannot take out loans themselves. . . . so now I have to take

out loans of my own, which for the amount I was approved for,

doesn't even cover a quarter of my tuition. I really felt let

down and disappointed.

There could not be a worst time for making changes that would take away or shrink a student's financial aid.

Over 500,000 low and middle-income California students rely on Pell grants for financial assistance. The maximum Pell grant has been frozen at $4,050 for 3 consecutive years, while the costs of attending a 4- year public college or private college have increased both nationwide and in California.

We must do all we can to make college education more accessible and affordable for our Nation's students.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators Corzine and Kennedy in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I offer today legislation to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP.

I am pleased to be joined on this bill by a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Kyl, Schumer, Cornyn, Boxer, McCain, Durbin, Crapo, Cantwell, Hutchison, Bingaman and Alexander.

This legislation is critical to ensuring that cash strapped states and localities are at least partially reimbursed for the costs of housing undocumented criminal aliens in their jails. Ultimately, were it not for the failure of the federal government to control illegal immigration, States and localities would not have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in housing these individuals in their prisons and jails.

During the 108th Congress, this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent but stalled in the House of Representatives. This year, passage of this legislation is even more critical given that the authorization for appropriations for SCAAP in the Immigration and Nationality Act expired in 2004.

While hard numbers can be elusive when determining the actual costs to American taxpayers of illegal immigration, not many would disagree that the costs are in the billions of dollars each year. These costs go to, for instance, education, medical care and incarceration. And even if we consider the tax contributions of undocumented aliens and subtract that from the total costs, we are still left with expenditures in the billions of dollars.

The cost of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens alone is a staggering figure--millions of dollars each year. And these dollars expended by States and localities are not optional. They must be expended since incarcerating individuals convicted of committing a crime is not optional.

Since funding for SCAAP began in 1995, the amount appropriated has been as high as $565 million and as low as $250 million--and these figures only covered a portion of the costs expended by States and localities to house undocumented criminal aliens. Furthermore, every day States and localities expend other monies on undocumented criminal aliens that are not reimbursed by the federal government through SCAAP. Those expenses include public safety expenditures, expenses of trial proceedings, use of translators, cost of public defenders and the incarceration

expenses of undocumented criminal aliens for minor offenses that do not meet the standards of SCAAP.

The reality is that all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands requested reimbursement through the SCAAP program in fiscal year 2004. In that year, $281,605,292 was awarded through the program.

Congress has an obligation to reimburse States and localities for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens when the federal government fails in its responsibility to effectively deter illegal immigration.

During the 108th Congress, this bill--S. 460--passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

This year, passage of this legislation is all the more critical because authorization for SCAAP funds expired in 2004. Without funding, cash strapped states and localities are going to have to re-allocate monies from other areas within their criminal justice system to meet the costs of housing undocumented criminal aliens.

We in Congress can assist, albeit in small part, our states by supporting the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2005''. This bill would amend section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize appropriations at a level of $750 million for FY 2006, $850 million for FY 2007 and $950 million for FY 2008 through FY 2011.

Enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, SCAAP reimburses States and localities that incur costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. These aliens must be convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in violation of State or local law, and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days.

Funding for SCAAP has been appropriated by Congress annually since 1995. The program is administered by the Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice Assistance, which is located in the Department of Justice.

During FY1997 to FY2003, approximately $3.5 billion was distributed to States and localities. California has historically received the largest annual awards since the program's inception, with Arizona, Illinois, New York and Texas also consistently receiving large awards. Unfortunately, authorization for SCAAP expired in October 2004.

SCAAP was established with the belief that protecting the nation's borders from illegal immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government and that States and localities should be reimbursed by the Federal Government for expenses relating to these duties.

It is clear to everyone in this Chamber that immigration is a federal responsibility. In fact, the Constitution gives Congress plenary power over immigration, so States are legally barred from acting on their own. SCAAP has been set up over the years to reimburse states and local government for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens.

It is based on the principle that when the Federal Government fails to enforce its laws against immigration violators, it should bear the responsibility for the financial costs of this failure.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.