Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today, our third day of debate on the highway bill.

As we have stated before, this is vital legislation that will have an impact on every American.

I join Senator Inhofe in calling on my colleagues to come to the floor to offer amendments. With that said, I would like to address some of the important provisions in this bill.

I would like to spend a minute talking about bridges and our need to make sure that adequate funding exists to maintain these structures.

As many of my colleagues know, I have a passion for bridges and specifically covered bridges.

While covered bridges are no longer critical parts of our Nation's infrastructure, they provide an important link to our collective past and are feats of engineering and longevity.

The National Covered Bridge Preservation Program, which I authored in 1998, has been a great success, albeit a slightly underfunded success.

From the Thetford Center Covered Bridge to the Weathersfield Falls Covered Bridge, I have taken great pride in being able to work to rehabilitate these bridges in Vermont.

Given my passion for the topic, many members may think that Vermont has the Nation's largest number of these bridges.

In fact, Pennsylvania has 220 covered bridges, Ohio has 144 covered bridges, and Vermont has only 99 covered bridges.

Even California has 12 covered bridges and Missouri has 5.

It is my great regret that I do not believe Oklahoma has any of these fine structures.

While I may seem like a broken record talking about bridges, it is critical that we pass a bill that adequately funds bridge maintenance and repair.

While I do not have the national statistics at my fingertips, those of you that travel around our Nation's Capital can readily attest to the fact that the bridges in this city are choke points for commuters and commerce.

The DC Department of Transportation estimates that about $300 million is needed to repair 11 major bridges.

If we do not provide at least some of these funds, our economy will suffer.

Senator Leahy and I have been working for years to provide funds to rehabilitate the Missisquoi Bay Bridge in Vermont.

This bridge links New York and Vermont and serves as an international corridor to Canada.

In 1998, Vermont's congressional delegation secured funds in the highway bill to begin the project, and unfortunately we are still at it.

I can hardly imagine how long it would take to upgrade the George

Washington or Chesapeake Bay Bridges.

It is my hope that the Congress will send the President a bill with a robust bridge program.

Our Nation's bridges, whether historic or not, are in a state of disrepair and this bill is an important step in the right direction.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. Res. 118, a resolution I submitted with Senator Leahy to recognize the Enosburg Falls Vermont Dairy Festival in honor of Harold Howrigan.

Harold is a dairyman through and through.

He recently retired from the board of the St. Albans Co-op, a Vermont dairy cooperative, and he ably served as the board's president for 17 years.

Harold is a great guy--a real leader in Vermont's diary industry--and I've known him and his family for many years.

Dairy farming is a tough job, and only those who really love it are successful.

Congratulations, Harold, and I wish you the best in retirement.

Enosburg Falls and the Lions Club of Enosburg host and sponsor the Vermont Dairy Festival.

This year, the festival celebrates its 49th year.

They say it is the largest parade in Vermont, and I believe it is the largest.

Enosburg Falls is a small town; I know, I used to spend a lot of time there.

In fact, my family settled in Enosburg in 1792.

My family owned the local pharmacy on Main Street, in downtown Enosburg, for many years.

But during the festival, thousands of Vermonters show up to enjoy the parade and participate in the events.

It is a wonderful time.

Our resolution honors Harold's years of service.

And it recognizes the men and women who make the Vermont Dairy Festival the success that it is and will continue to be.

I am hopeful that the Senate will soon act on this resolution to appropriately celebrate Harold's career and Vermonts dairy farmers.

Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those calling for the approval of the motion to proceed that we will soon vote on.

For more than 3 years Congress has been trying to pass a highway bill. Today we are taking one more step in the long road toward passage of this important legislation.

Mr. President, our Nation needs this bill. We need this bill because it will make our roads and transit systems more efficient and safer.

This year it is estimated that 33 percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition; 27 percent of America's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; 37 percent of America's major urban roads are congested; and 42,000 Americans will die in traffic accidents.

We need this bill because a fully funded bill is good for the economy.

The Department of Transportation says that for every $1 billion of Federal spending on highway construction nationwide, 47,500 jobs are generated annually; and that every dollar invested in the Nation's highway system yields $5.40 in economic benefits because of reduced delays, improved safety and reduced vehicle operating costs.

We need this bill to maintain our current highways and bridges than ever before, while demand for our roadways only increases.

The Federal Highway Administration says that 52 percent of highway funds spent by States went to preserving highway systems while just 19 percent went to building new roads and bridges.

At the same time, traffic congestion costs American motorists $69.5 billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs and we spend an additional 3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic.

This bill isn't perfect. In fact, I think it needs additional funding. The White House has suggested an overall funding level for surface transportation of $284 billion over 6 years.

This despite the President's own Transportation Department saying we need at least $300 billion to simply maintain the status quo, and something well above that level to make progress on conditions and performance.

Thankfully, calls for increased funding have come from Republicans, Democrats and Independents; Members of the House and Senate, Governors and Mayors. But we will address the funding issue in due time.

Today we must get cloture on this bill and move forward.

Once again, I would like to thank the Senate leadership on both sides for their support of this bill.

I would also like to pay tribute to Chairman Inhofe and Senators Bond and Baucus for their support and cooperation in helping get us to where we are today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I yield to the chairman such time as he desires from the time on this side.

That is fair.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his good words. I hope the Senators viewing this will join so we can expedite passage of this bill.

I thank the Senator for the opportunity but the answer is no.

I am very pleased to concur in the amendment. The Senator has made an excellent presentation. I appreciate the work of the Senator.

I thank the Chairman. I have a brief statement I would like to put in.

Mr. President, when you live in Vermont, you must endure a long, hard winter.

To keep spirits up, a Vermonter will look for signs of spring, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

One leading indicator of brighter days ahead is a phenomenon known as the frost heave.

As temperatures rise, highways begin to buckle, producing humps in the road that rattle your teeth and mangle your shocks. Highway workers post bright orange signs to warn drivers of upcoming frost heaves. To a Vermonter, these signs are like the first flowers in bloom.

As the seasonal changes unfold, the frost heaves recede and the paved roads return to their more normal state. Unfortunately, that is often a state of disrepair. Bridges share this sorry condition, due to effects of weather, wear and tear.

The cure is major maintenance, reconstruction or replacement. But that costs money, a lot of money.

For more than the 3 years now, we have been working to reauthorize the highway program--because our transportation challenges are many.

The bill before us is a good one, it may not include all the funding it deserves, but it does move us forward. This bill addresses many very important issues facing our roads and highways. Safety is my highest priority.

Last year, Vermont experienced the highest number of fatalities on its highways since 1998. Ninety-seven people died in automobile crashes, up from 69 in 2003.

Nationally, we have made real progress on highway safety over the last 10 years.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the rate of fatalities has declined from 1.9 to 1.5 deaths per million vehicle miles traveled. But the number of fatalities has held steady at roughly 42,000 per year. That number is unacceptable.

This bill is not only an investment in our highways, it is an investment in public safety.

And we know congestion in this country is bad and getting worse. Congestion costs Americans more than $69.5 billion annually in lost time and productivity; 5.7 billion gallons of fuel are wasted each year while motorists sit in traffic.

One way to reduce congestion. is to move goods by freight and we are moving more freight in this country than ever before.

The forecast for future demand is daunting, with U.S. DOT projecting that the volume of freight will increase 70 percent by 2020.

This bill will expand freight capacity through new partnerships, investments and market financing techniques.

The highway program expired nearly 2 years ago, and the States have been operating under series of short-term extensions.

This has disrupted construction programs, delayed safety improvements and interrupted funding to transit operators.

It is time to act on this bill. The next sign of spring in Vermont after the frost heave is something known as mud season. You can tell from the name that it's not a lot of fun.

Moving a highway bill over the coming weeks will feel at times like mud season but at the other end a brighter day.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Frist for the opportunity to debate this important legislation.

I also thank Senator Reid for his leadership in getting us to where we are today on this bill.

In addition, I thank Chairman Inhofe, Senators Bond, and Baucus, as well as other chairmen and ranking members for all of their hard work and cooperation on this legislation.

A little over a year ago, I stood before my colleagues, in the same place I am standing now, asking for their support of our Nation's surface transportation system.

I am hopeful now, as I was then, that we will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to pass this legislation quickly so our states can proceed with their critical work.

Today we are in a similar situation as we were a year ago.

Our bill maintains the important principles that were developed over the years of work in our committees.

We continue to grow and support the core programs that are the building block of a strong transportation system.

We maintain flexibility for States, because they know best how to meet their needs.

We also try to increase the funds going out to the States.

This bill will enhance safety on our Nation's highways through education, better infrastructure, and enforcement.

The increased intermodal flexibility set forth in the bill will allow States, if they wish to improve freight handling and movement.

The growth in congestion mitigation and air quality funding will help States improve air quality, reduce pollution and address congestion.

The bill makes it easier for States to mitigate project effects on habitat and wetlands, and retains and expands popular programs such as enhancements recreational trails and scenic byways.

This bill also reduces congestion on our Nation's roadways by enhancing public transportation and promoting intermodal solutions to regional transportation problems.

These are all critical components to a successful bill and I am glad that, through much hard work, we were able to develop strong national policy.

It may not be exactly what any one Member would have crafted on his or her own, but this is a strong and unified step in the right direction.

There are, however, some key differences.

A year ago, we presented you with a well-funded bill that struck a delicate balance between the core programs and flexibility on program and modal spending at the State and local level.

This time our job was made more difficult by fiscal constraints insisted upon by the administration.

The White House has suggested an overall funding level for surface transportation of $284 billion over 6 years.

This despite the President's own Transportation Department saying we need at least $300 billion to simply maintain the status quo, and something well above that level to make progress on conditions and performance.

Last year the Senate passed a highway bill at $318 billion with 76 votes.

It is unfortunate that the President fails to see the value of a robust transportation program.

It is unfortunate the President fails to see the jobs that will be lost, and the roads and bridges that will go unrepaired and unbuilt.

It is unfortunate the President doesn't see the lives that could be saved with better roads and the time that will be wasted sitting in traffic.

All of this is the result of inadequate funding.

While my colleagues and I have continued to impress upon him the value of increased funding, we continue to work within the box that the administration has put us in.

We tried to meet everyone's needs while not neglecting our responsibilities to the highway trust fund.

This is a very difficult task given the restrictions this administration has imposed on us.

But we did what was asked of us.

All of the committees have acted and passed a bill at $284 billion.

Make no mistake--we have made sacrifices that none of us wanted.

I am hopeful we will increase the funding in this bill as we move it through the Senate in the coming days.

That said, I stand here before you with the structure of a bill that has the potential to move our transportation system forward--not the giant leap we had hoped to make but meager steps that I hope will be the first of many in helping us get where we need to go.

Mr. President, I need not remind you that the authorization for this program expired 19 months ago.

In that time, there have been nearly 70,000 traffic fatalities with an economic cost of over $370 billion.

Americans continue to sit in traffic for close to 50 hours a year, 10 minutes more per hour traveled than when the last reauthorization bill was passed.

Mr. President, 18 percent of our roads are in poor or mediocre condition; 29 percent of bridges are deficient or functionally obsolete; over a quarter of our transit facilities are in below average condition; more than 3 million jobs are waiting to be created.

While we neglect to act, transportation in this country continues to degrade.

Things are getting worse, not better.

We have lost one construction season and are on our way to missing another.

In northern States such as Vermont, this is not a little problem. It is a big one.

We must act on this legislation now.

We must pass a nationwide surface transportation reauthorization bill this year.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to debate H.R. 3 on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the pending Mikulski amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk about the amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland. As a cosponsor of that amendment, I rise in support of this amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill.

The Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act, on which this amendment is based, is very important to my State of Vermont. This amendment will ensure the seasonal businesses in our country have the workers they need to support their company, our local economics, and to help the U.S. economy flourish. Action on this critical issue is long overdue.

In March of last year, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced they had received enough petitions to meet the cap on the H-2B visas. As a result, they stopped accepting petitions for these temporary work visas halfway through the Federal fiscal year. This announcement was a shock to many businesses throughout the country that depend on foreign workers to fill their temporary and seasonal positions.

Tourism is the largest sector of Vermont's economy and, as a result, many Vermont businesses hire seasonal staff during their summer, winter, or fall seasons. Last year, I heard from many Vermont businesses that were unable to employ foreign workers for their summer and fall seasons because the cap had been reached. Not only was this unexpected, but many of the individuals were people who had been returning to the same employer year after year. These employers lost essential staff and, in many cases, well-trained, experienced employees.

While I am proud to say that Vermont businesses have risen to this challenge with hard work and creativity in the past, the need for these workers has not, and will not, diminish. Congress must act and must act now. The companies I have heard from are proud of the work their staffs have done under these circumstances. Yet they believe their businesses and their personnel will suffer if they are not able to employ seasonal foreign workers again this year. Many foresee a devastating effect on their businesses if they are not able to bring in foreign workers soon.

I have also heard from Vermont businesses that they had to lay off or not hire American workers because they could not find enough employees to round out their crews. Without having the sufficient number of workers to complete projects, they could not hire or maintain their year-round staff. They also could not bid on projects and many had to scale back their operations. In these instances, the lack of seasonal workers had a detrimental effect on our economy and on the employment of American workers.

As many may know, I strongly believe American workers must be given the opportunity to fill jobs and that this Nation's strength is in its own workforce. However, the companies that have contacted me did their utmost to find Americans for positions available. Efforts to find American workers included working closely with the State of Vermont's Employment and Training Office, increasing wages and benefits, and implementing aggressive, year-round recruiting.

We are lucky in Vermont to count tourism among our chief industries, and we have our beautiful rural landscape to thank for the visitors who flock to our small State each year. While many Vermont businesses were able to survive last year, thanks to that old Yankee ingenuity, I am not optimistic about this year. It is imperative we immediately address this problem in order to prevent further harm to this Nation's small businesses and the economy.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment by Senator Mikulski.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 430

Mr. President, the Bush administration has decided that all funding for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan be requested as supplemental emergency funding. I believe, therefore, that we must include in this supplemental funding legislation, additional monies to cover the cost of the war incurred by the Veterans Administration.

The President's budget did not request sufficient funding to cover the significant increases in medical costs of veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. While severely wounded service members are remaining longer in the Department of Defense health care system than in past conflicts, the VA provides all care for these men and women after they are released from the military, and provides care to Guard members and Reservists beginning immediately after they return home from a deployment.

We must cover these expenses. We cannot turn away these veterans. We also cannot turn away other veterans and deny them care in deference to the newest veterans. That would not be right either.

I am pleased to join Senators Murray and Akaka in offering this amendment to provide $1.9 billion in additional funding to the Veterans Administration. Passage of this amendment would go a long way to covering existing shortfalls and allowing the VA to ramp up to meet the current and expected needs for the coming year. I am pleased that this amendment addresses the critical issue of mental health by providing $525 million specifically for mental health care and treatment.

Unlike prior wars, where soldiers were expected to lay down their guns upon returning home and forget about the war, service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan understand that it is very important for their mental health and the well-being of their family, that they deal with both the mental effects of the war and the emotional effects on their families of a long and stressful separation. Vet centers exist all across the country to help veterans and their families deal with the ghosts of war and manage the transition back home. These centers do a phenomenal job, but they are generally very small and have been handling a limited case load. With veterans returning from Iraq in huge numbers, particularly members of the National Guard and Reserve who do not live on or near military bases the job of the Vet centers has increased more than a hundred-fold. The Vet centers need an increase in both staff and resources commensurate with the demands now placed upon them.

We have learned from prior wars that much can be done to ease the transition back to civilian life if it is done immediately. Immediate mental health care can prevent the onset of more difficult diagnoses, such as post traumatic stress disorder. The VA has developed expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD, well beyond that of the private sector. The challenge now is to spread this expertise throughout the VA system. This takes resources. We also have learned that those soldiers who have suffered physical wounds will often need ongoing mental health assistance to face the challenges of life with a disability. We must not turn our backs on them.

The bill before the Senate is designed to cover the costs of these two conflicts. We cannot say we have done so if we do not cover the costs of the physical and emotional wounds from these conflicts. The only way that this can be done with the funding provided by the President's budget is if our obligations to other veterans are set aside. This would be wrong. The only way we can truly honor our obligations to all of our veterans is to support the amendment by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.

I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. President, one of my first responsibilities when I arrived in the Senate was to recommend to the first President Bush a nominee for a district court seat. But while I was a relatively new Senator, this was in some respects a fairly easy task.

My predecessor in the Senate, Bob Stafford, had established a sound and fair process with Senator Leahy for choosing candidates for the judiciary, which we have continued to this day with the participation of Governor Douglas, a Republican.

Vermont is a small State, but it is one with an outsized capacity for public service. Our best lawyers have been willing to accept the financial sacrifice that accompanies serving on the bench. And as a small State, I think it is fairly easy to agree on who the best candidates might be, even though you invariably pass over many very qualified individuals.

Finally, I guess I should say that I was born to it. My father, Olin Jeffords, was a judge the entire time I was growing up. In fact, he was chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. He was widely respected, not just by his son, but by our community locally and by the legal community throughout the State. That respect was entirely unremarkable. It reflected the appreciation of the importance of an independent judiciary stocked with able and committed individuals.

My first job following the Navy and law school was as a clerk for Judge Ernest Gibson, Jr., of Vermont. Judge Gibson, a Republican, had resigned as Governor of the State of Vermont in order to accept Harry Truman's offer of nomination to the Federal bench. Judge Gibson could have followed any path in life he wanted. He returned from service in the South Pacific during World War II a hero, and with some fame stemming from having played a role in the rescue of Lieutenant John F. Kennedy and the other survivors of PT-109.

As a young boy, I idolized him and the other heroes returning from the Pacific. To work for him years later was an incredible honor.

So having been around the judiciary all of my life, it was not especially daunting when it came time early in my Senate career to nominate an individual to the Federal district court. The late Fred I. Parker was not only the best candidate for the job, he was also a man I had hired to work with me when I served as attorney general and who had become a close friend over the years. To know Fred was to love him. Years later, when a vacancy on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals opened up, President Clinton nominated Fred to the position to which he was confirmed and served with distinction until his passing.

These three men--a father, a mentor, and a friend--would probably be the first to admit that they were more typical than exceptional of the caliber of individuals that comprise the judiciary. Fred worked hard to pay his way through school, often in the plumbing trade with his father. He was forever mindful of his father's advice that whenever he started becoming convinced of his own importance, he should stick his fist in a bucket of water to see the kind of impression he would leave.

So I take it very personally when politicians seek to score points by attacking the judiciary. These men had and have families, just like today's judges in Florida and Georgia and Illinois. The only thing we should be doing is condemning violence directed against the judiciary, not rationalizing it or implicitly encouraging it.

Of course, my colleagues will not agree with every decision made by the judiciary. My good friend Fred Parker struck down part of the Brady law that I had supported. I might have disagreed with him, but I never would have questioned his motives or integrity.

The first lesson we teach children when they enter competitive sports is to respect the referee, even if we think he might have made the wrong call. If our children can understand this, why can't our political leaders? We shouldn't be throwing rhetorical hand grenades.

Vermonters are proud of their long history of smart, independent, forward-thinking judges. These men and women have shown the true spirit of the judiciary and upheld the law and Constitution, even if it was against what was the popular will at the time. This is what the judiciary was designed to be, a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches.

Our Founding Fathers were concerned that the legislative and executive branches of our Government could be too swayed by public opinion and not uphold the rights of Americans because of political pressure. The judiciary was designed to be independent and make sure that the law and the Constitution were followed even if it went against public opinion.

I am also concerned with the threat of the majority to take what is the so-

called nuclear option. Our form of government is founded on a system of checks and balances, which serves to protect the rights of all individuals. The right in the Senate to unlimited debate is an important part of our system of checks and balances and ensures that on important, critical issues a bipartisan consensus is reached of more than a bare minimum majority of Senators.

I sincerely hope that cooler heads will begin to prevail and my colleagues will tone down the rhetoric they have been using to smear the integrity of the judiciary, and the Republican leadership will reject the divisive and unprecedented so-called nuclear option.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise before you in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the very first chapter of Vietnam Veterans of America, which was founded and nurtured in my home town of Rutland,

Mr. President, a Federal budget is about setting priorities, and the priorities contained in this budget are all wrong.

About a year ago, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, described the President's budget as ``faith-based.'' Faith-based tax cuts were going to generate faith-based revenues, and we were all going to be better off. Well, the deficit is skyrocketing, interest rates are going up, and additional revenues haven't magically appeared.

If the budget before us were to pass unchanged, the deficit would increase each and every year for the foreseeable future. Vermonters understand that this is a burden we don't want to pass on to our grandchildren. We have fallen into a borrowing pattern that makes this Yankee cringe.

But let me emphasize that the deficits that we are now facing are primarily caused by a drop in revenues, not by wasteful spending on such things as education, veterans' benefits, and Amtrak. We could eliminate all of the Federal Government's discretionary spending outside of defense and we would still have a deficit.

On the mandatory side of the budget, I agree that we need to get a handle on increases in Medicaid spending and the pressures on Social Security due to the aging baby boom generation. But this budget fails to confront these challenges and in the case of Social Security pretends there is no problem.

How can we pass a budget that ignores the cost of the Iraq War after September 30? How can we pass a budget that includes more tax cuts for the few, but doesn't budget for the reform of the alternative minimum tax or the President's own Social Security proposal?

How can we pass a budget that forces us to ``pay for'' any increases in programs for our neediest citizens but doesn't require us to ``pay for'' tax cuts for the well-to-do? If we are to reinstate the pay-as- you-go rule, then it should, as it always has, include paying for both new spending and new tax cuts.

Speaking of tax cuts, I have grown very tired of the economic doublespeak now in fashion. If tax cuts were the policy of choice when we had large surpluses, and they are still the policy of choice when we now have large deficits, when if ever are tax cuts not the appropriate policy? Perhaps the families in Vermont who used up their heating assistance funds before winter was over, or the veteran on a waiting list for a medical procedure at a VA hospital, would prefer an increase in government spending to a tax cut.

Priorities, it is all about priorities.

We are 2 years into a war. American service men and women continue to come home with horrific wounds, both physical and mental. While the Department of Defense is keeping wounded soldiers in its medical system for longer periods of time and is shouldering a greater share of the costs, the long-term costs of health care and rehabilitation still fall heaviest on the Veterans Administration.

This budget responds by underfunding the VA by almost $16 billion over the next 5 years. How can we do this in the midst of a war? How can the President in good conscience insist on maintaining large numbers of troops in Iraq, and yet refuse to provide for the health care needs of veterans? This is unacceptable.

This budget drastically cuts the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program and other programs that our communities rely on. These programs now benefit so many Vermonters who struggle to make ends meet. This budget would consolidate 18 programs, including the CDBG, and slashes their funding by 34 percent. In Vermont, this budget would most harshly affect middle and low-income citizens by making safe and affordable housing unattainable, ending quality childcare programs, and compromising nutrition assistance. Funding for these important economic development programs must be restored.

I am very concerned that agriculture, conservation, and food assistance programs are faced with drastic cuts in funding. The Milk Income Loss Contract Program, MILC, which the President saw fit to include in his proposed budget, has been left out of this budget resolution. The MILC Program is necessary to help family farmers through tough times when milk prices are low.

This budget would also seriously compromise conservation programs that are used to restore our land and clean our water. Perhaps most unsettling will be the cuts to food assistance and nutrition programs, including food stamps. In Vermont, 30 percent of children live in low- income households that depend on food stamps for their basic needs and the medical safety net for their healthcare.

Vermont, together with States throughout the Nation, is facing a serious budget shortfall in providing the most basic level of healthcare to our most vulnerable citizens. Instead of facing that fact and providing temporary fiscal assistance to the States, the President called for billions of dollars in cuts in the Medicaid program, which the Senate fortunately rejected.

I am most disappointed that the Senate did not vote to provide additional funding for the Nation's water infrastructure. Spending on environmental programs from the national parks to programs that keep our water, land, and air clean will have to be reduced if this budget is enacted.

Priorities, it is all about priorities.

Even though education amendments passed, which I supported, that added money back to the Senate budget proposal, that is still insufficient to adequately fund important Federal education initiatives. I remain concerned that the budget resolution will eliminate funding for several key education programs, such as the $1.3 billion Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. This is especially depressing since just last week the Senate, on a vote of 99-0, passed the Perkins bill. Then just a few days later, no funding is provided in the budget to carry out the program that was just passed.

In addition, the budget proposal does not provide the meaningful increases necessary to carry out the 4-year-old No Child Left Behind Act and the updated IDEA law that was enacted last December.

President Bush often mentions that education is a priority. He and I obviously define priority differently. To me, priority means you pay for the promises you make. I do not believe priority means you sign laws requiring more accountability to improve student performance, and then, in the next breath, send up a budget that doesn't provide the dollars needed to carry out the purposes of those laws.

I have spent a substantial part of my career calling for the full funding of special education. When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was enacted in 1975, Congress promised to pay 40 percent of the cost. In the current fiscal year, Congress will finance only 19 percent of the program, forcing States and localities to make up the difference.

I have tried to fulfill this promise in each of the last few years by making IDEA funding mandatory. The President and his allies have said that mandatory funding is not necessary, that we can meet the promise of IDEA by increasing funding by $1 billion each year. In this budget, IDEA funding is increased by only half of that amount.

This budget tells our children, their parents, and our local taxpayers that they are not a priority, and that we will not keep our word.

There is no question we are living through difficult budgetary times and savings must be sought at every opportunity. But we must not delude the American people into thinking that we can cut taxes, fight wars overseas, improve education, take care of our environment, and repair the Nation's transportation and water infrastructure all at the same time.

I could not support the budget resolution because it did not adequately fund important domestic programs and promote tax cuts to the detriment of other priorities. At the same time, it did little to put our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Middlebury College men's ice hockey team on its March 19, 2005 victory in the NCAA Division III National Championship against St. Thomas University. This is the second straight national championship for the Panthers and their seventh in the past 11 years.

For more than two centuries, Middlebury College has offered students a top-notch liberal arts education. Best known for its academic excellence and its picturesque campus, Middlebury also boasts a highly regarded athletic program that complements its educational mission and helps facilitate a great collegiate experience for all Middlebury students. Over 25 percent of all undergraduates at the college participate in varsity sports and Middlebury has worn an astonishing 24 national titles in just over a decade.

During this past hockey season, the Panthers represented Middlebury with hard work and determination on the ice. The accomplishments of the student-athletes were rewarded by a loyal fan base that packed the Chip Kenyon Arena night after night to watch great college hockey. Along with the thousands of Middlebury hockey fans, I am proud to have such an impressive college hockey team playing in the State of Vermont.

I congratulate each member of the team: Head Coach Bill Beaney, Assistant Coach Chris LaPerle, Student Assistant Coach Ryan Cahill, Team Manager Ryan McQuillan, Team Trainer David Matthews, Team Physician Mark Peluso, Ross Cherry, Tom Maldonado, Jed McDonald, Levi Doria, Scott Ward, Tim Graham, Mickey Gilchrist, Darwin Hunt, Patrick Nugent, Eric LeFreniere, Justin Gaines, Evgeny Saidachev, Robert MacIntyre, Shady Young, Jeff Smith, Brett Shirreffs, John Sales, Leonard Badeau, Brian Phinney, Richie Fuld, Yen-I Chen, Jocko DeCarolis, Samuel Driver, and Scott Bartlett.

Again, congratulations Panthers on another incredible season and good luck next year.

Mr. President, I would like to commend the Middlebury College women's ice hockey team on its recent victory in the NCAA Division III National Championship against Elmira College. This is the second straight national championship for the Panthers and their fourth in the past 6 years.

Over 120 years ago, Middlebury College began admitting female students, decades before many similar institutions were willing to do so. Since that time, Middlebury has offered young men and women alike a superb liberal arts education amidst the beauty of the Green Mountains. Reflecting Middlebury's proud and pioneering tradition of academic excellence and coeducation, the women's athletic program at Middlebury has developed into one of the best Division III athletics. Over the last 10 years, women's athletic teams at Middlebury have captured 13 national titles.

The women's hockey team has been one of the most consistently successful athletic teams at Middlebury. In the 2005 national championship, the Panthers exhibited their characteristic spirit and determination by overcoming an early 2-1 deficit to win by a final 4-3. I am pleased our local schoolchildren have the opportunity to see such accomplished and impressive student-athletes competing in Vermont.

I congratulate each member of the team: Head Coach Bill Mandigo, Assistant Coach Jean Butler, Team Trainer Rachel Eldredge, Team Physician Mark Peluso, Abby Kurtz-Phelan, Shannon Tarrant, Emily McNamara, Rose Babst, Liz Yale-Loehr, Allison Liati, Karen Levin, Gillian Paul, Shannon Sylvester, Emily Quizon, Jackie Cohen, Lindsay Jones, Tory MacNeil, Gloria Velez, Alison Graddock, Margaret MacDonald, Samantha Ritt, Lacey Farrell, Ellen Sargent, Lorna Gifis, Tania Kenny, Kerry Kiley, Abby Smith, Angie Todd, Nina Daugherty, and Kate Kogut.

Again, congratulations Panthers on another national championship, I wish you all the best next year.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Akaka amendment #149 to add desperately needed funds to this budget for veterans health care. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment.

The spending level in this budget for veterans health care defies logic. We are 2 years into a war. Yet this budget fails to provide adequate resources for those who have served this country so valiantly. American servicemembers are wounded in Iraq each day. Thanks to new advances in battlefield medicine, more wounded soldiers than ever before live to return home. But in a greater percentage of cases, they come home with horrific wounds, both visible and invisible. The Department of Defense should be commended for keeping wounded soldiers in its medical system for longer periods of time and for shouldering a greater share of the costs. However, the long-term costs of health care and rehabilitation still fall heaviest on the Veterans Administration. This budget responds to those needs by underfunding the VA by almost $16 billion over the next 5 years. This is simply not acceptable!

Over the past year, unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserve troops have been mobilized. When these Guard members and Reservists come off active duty, they are entitled to 2 years of access to the VA health care system. In my home State of Vermont, over 1400 National Guard members have been called to active duty. While I am incredibly proud of the White River Junction VA Hospital, which has done award-winning work in their field, even they cannot be expected to handle this new influx of veterans without additional funding. We owe it to both the veterans and the VA employees to provide them with the funding and services they require. The Akaka amendment would provide an additional $2.85 billion to the VA for just this mission.

A significant number of Iraq veterans have complex and long-term care issues. Improved body armor has saved many lives, but among the wounded, we now see a higher percentage of lost limbs and head injuries. These traumatic injuries have a significant emotional component to their care. It has been estimated that as many as one- third of all returning service members have some type of mental health needs. VA hospitals are working hard to ensure these needs are met immediately, before they develop into more serious manifestations such as post traumatic stress disorder. It has become increasingly clear that we need a better understanding of the emotional and mental health aspects of both the war and traumatic injury. I believe that we must increase VA research on mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder, research that is critical to both

the Department of Defense and veterans health care. The National Center on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is doing excellent work along these lines, but a great deal remains to be done. We must pass the Akaka amendment if we hope to do better on this score.

The Budget Committee thankfully removed two provisions from the President's budget that have caused a great deal of concern among veterans. The President proposed to charge some veterans a $250 fee just to enroll in the VA health care system. The President also put forward an increase in the co-pay for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. I am pleased that the Budget Committee saw the error in both of these provisions, and cut them out of its budget.

Mr. President, it is critical that we pass the Akaka amendment. This should not be a partisan vote. Support for our troops is not a partisan matter. Taking care of their health care needs should not be a partisan issue either. If we cannot come together on this fundamental issue of fairness, what can we agree on? For the sake of our veterans, and in honor of their service, I urge all my colleagues to support the Akaka amendment. We owe our veterans this, and more.

Mr. President, I stand today to speak in support of Senator Byrd's amendment to restore funding for Amtrak. The amendment would increase funding for Amtrak by $200 million over last year's level of $1.2 billion.

Starving Amtrak into bankruptcy may appear to be the quick and easy solution to the bleak picture that some have imposed upon this fundamental element of America's transportation system. Nonetheless I remain convinced that the simplest and most effective answer lies with the amendment before us. I join my esteemed colleague Senator Byrd to insist that we fully fund rail travel in this country and guarantee Amtrak the opportunity to secure its future in the 21st century.

In just over three decades, Amtrak has grown to encompass a passenger rail network that connects 46 States, including my home State of Vermont. Through the years Amtrak has stood resilient in the face of financial peril and today it carries 24 million passengers annually and employs 22,000 Americans.

Amtrak serves a diverse ridership that depends on the continued existence of safe and reliable transportation. Amtrak shuttles commuters to their jobs, brings college students home for the holidays, and increases mobility for the elderly and the disabled. In urban areas, passenger rail relieves traffic on overcrowded highways. In rural States like Vermont, passenger rail ensures access to metropolitan centers and provides public transportation to regions where it might otherwise be too costly or unavailable.

As fuel prices remain unstable and our Nation's highways and airports suffer ever-increasing congestion and delays, Amtrak offers an invaluable alternative upon which Americans have come to rely.

I think one of my Vermont constituents expressed this sentiment best in a letter I recently received. Colby Crehan of Burlington, Vermont wrote of her Amtrak trip across the United States: ``I was able to travel safely and comfortably on a train while seeing the beautiful landscape that covers so much of this country. Amtrak introduced me to the rest of America in a way that a car or plane trip could never do. These trips confirmed my feeling that train travel is the safest, most convenient and relaxing way to travel perhaps you can share my story.''

Our choice today is clear. We can forfeit our prior investments and the investments of State and local governments back home, or we can uphold our responsibility to ensure that passenger rail remains an integral part of our Nation's transportation system. The future of passenger rail in this country belongs in the hands of Congress, not in the bankruptcy courts. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

I too support this order and I want to thank my colleagues on both the EPW Committee and Armed Services for working together on this joint request.