Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with my friends and colleagues--Senators Reed, Lautenberg, Corzine, Sarbanes, and Kerry--to introduce an important piece of legislation, the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005. This legislation will provide health insurance for every child in the United States by 2012, regardless of family income. My long-time friend from California, Congressman Stark, is introducing a companion bill in the House. He has worked tirelessly to improve access to health care for all Americans, and I am pleased to be joining him once again to advocate on behalf of America's children.

We have introduced this legislation in each of the last three Congresses because we know how vital health insurance is to a child. Children with untreated illnesses are less likely to learn and therefore less likely to move out of poverty. Such children have an inherent disadvantage when it comes to being productive members of society. We can have a positive impact on our children's lives today as well as tomorrow by guaranteeing health insurance coverage for all. Children are inexpensive to insure, but the rewards for providing them with health care during their early education and development years are enormous.

Despite the well-documented benefits of providing health insurance coverage for children, there are still over 8 million uninsured children in America. We can and must do better. Our children are our future. No child in this country should ever be without access to health care. This is why I am proud to reintroduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005.

This legislation is a clear investment in our future--our children. Every child would be automatically enrolled at birth into a new, comprehensive Federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2007. The benefits would be tailored to meet the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children through the Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Families below 150 percent of poverty would have no premiums or co-payments, and there would be no cost sharing for preventive or well-child visits for any child.

MediKids children would remain enrolled in the program throughout childhood. When families move to another state, Medikids would be available until parents can enroll their children in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises, Medikids would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to our Nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, MediKids would fill in the gaps until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. Ultimately, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage.

Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and disabled population over its 40-year history. At the time we created Medicare, seniors were more likely to be living in poverty than any other age group. Most were unable to afford needed medical services and unable to find health insurance in the market even if they could afford it. Today, it is our Nation's children who shoulder the burden of poverty. Children in America are nearly twice as vulnerable to poverty as adults. It's time we make a significant investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life.

Congress cannot rest on the success we achieved by expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Although each was a remarkable step toward reducing the ranks of the uninsured, particularly uninsured children, we still have a long way to go. Even with perfect enrollment in CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance. What's more troubling is the fact that both Medicaid and CHIP are in serious jeopardy because of the budget cuts being proposed by the current Administration.

It's long past time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill we are introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country. I urge my colleagues to move beyond partisan politics and to support this critical step toward universal coverage.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my friends and colleagues--Senators Reed, Lautenberg, Corzine, Sarbanes, and Kerry--to introduce an important piece of legislation, the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005. This legislation will provide health insurance for every child in the United States by 2012, regardless of family income. My long-time friend from California, Congressman Stark, is introducing a companion bill in the House. He has worked tirelessly to improve access to health care for all Americans, and I am pleased to be joining him once again to advocate on behalf of America's children.

We have introduced this legislation in each of the last three Congresses because we know how vital health insurance is to a child. Children with untreated illnesses are less likely to learn and therefore less likely to move out of poverty. Such children have an inherent disadvantage when it comes to being productive members of society. We can have a positive impact on our children's lives today as well as tomorrow by guaranteeing health insurance coverage for all. Children are inexpensive to insure, but the rewards for providing them with health care during their early education and development years are enormous.

Despite the well-documented benefits of providing health insurance coverage for children, there are still over 8 million uninsured children in America. We can and must do better. Our children are our future. No child in this country should ever be without access to health care. This is why I am proud to reintroduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005.

This legislation is a clear investment in our future--our children. Every child would be automatically enrolled at birth into a new, comprehensive Federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2007. The benefits would be tailored to meet the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children through the Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Families below 150 percent of poverty would have no premiums or co-payments, and there would be no cost sharing for preventive or well-child visits for any child.

MediKids children would remain enrolled in the program throughout childhood. When families move to another state, Medikids would be available until parents can enroll their children in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises, Medikids would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to our Nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, MediKids would fill in the gaps until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. Ultimately, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage.

Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and disabled population over its 40-year history. At the time we created Medicare, seniors were more likely to be living in poverty than any other age group. Most were unable to afford needed medical services and unable to find health insurance in the market even if they could afford it. Today, it is our Nation's children who shoulder the burden of poverty. Children in America are nearly twice as vulnerable to poverty as adults. It's time we make a significant investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life.

Congress cannot rest on the success we achieved by expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Although each was a remarkable step toward reducing the ranks of the uninsured, particularly uninsured children, we still have a long way to go. Even with perfect enrollment in CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance. What's more troubling is the fact that both Medicaid and CHIP are in serious jeopardy because of the budget cuts being proposed by the current Administration.

It's long past time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill we are introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country. I urge my colleagues to move beyond partisan politics and to support this critical step toward universal coverage.

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

Mr. President, today I commemorate 142 years of statehood for my State of West Virginia. In doing so, I believe that it is important to note my State's motto, ``Mountaineers Are Always Free.'' This phrase, as relevant today as it was 142 years ago, truly embodies a people who have done so much to contribute to our great Nation and a State so abundant in natural beauty.

Historically, West Virginia's magnificent landscape has nurtured and inspired her inhabitants, endowing willing adventurers the freedom to explore, experience, and utilize her natural wonders. Native Americans came to West Virginia over 9,000 years ago and established the State's first permanent settlement in present-day St. Albans. Their ancient artifacts and impressive monuments, such as the Grave Creek Burial Mound, in Moundsville, serve as lasting tributes to the land's eternal contributions to mankind.

Today, the people of West Virginia remain free to explore and enjoy the State's unspoiled, majestic terrain. Mountainous views extend for miles in every direction, and blend seamlessly with glades of rhododendron and deep river valleys.

Hundreds of thousands of acres of forests, such as the Monongahela National Forest, blanket our State with lush plant life. West Virginia has over 50 State and national parks that protect our natural habitat and provide recreation to millions of visitors each year. Nearly 20 different species of endangered or threatened animals, including the bald eagle, have found refuge within our ecosystem.

Pocahontas County's pristine rivers and streams provide some of the best trout fishing in the State, and offer those who visit countless opportunities to escape into the serenity of the Appalachian Mountains. The county is known as the ``Birthplace of Rivers'' because 8 different rivers have headwaters there, with their only source of water being the fresh mountain rain.

In addition to the freedoms provided by West Virginia's natural environment, the citizens of West Virginia have fostered a social climate of acceptance, where all are free to express their thoughts and beliefs and take advantage of the benefits of a good education.

Booker T. Washington, following President Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, sought refuge in West Virginia and was raised in a small mining town called Malden. It was there that he was encouraged to follow his dream of education, and there that he developed the skills to become one of our country's foremost educators and leaders.

Another location, the Sumner School in Parkersburg, became the Nation's first free school for African-American children below the Mason-Dixon. It was operated until school segregation ended in 1954 and currently houses the Sumnerite African-American History Museum.

In addition to these advances to freedom and education made within our home State, West Virginians have consistently and overwhelmingly devoted their lives to protect the ideals on which this Nation was founded--liberty and equality.

Five hundred thousand West Virginians, since the time of the Civil War, have fought to protect our country in battles and conflicts all over the world. There are currently 200,000 veterans in West Virginia, giving my State the highest per capita ratio of veterans in the Nation.

Such an impeccable record of devotion to freedom is not surprising from a State with origins like West Virginia. It was born out of the Civil War in 1863 and became the ultimate manifestation of a State's loyalty to our young country.

For 142 years West Virginians have been selfless in our love for this Nation, and our contributions to this country are best reflected in President Abraham Lincoln's own words. As our great President Lincoln said:

We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia in

this struggle . . . Her brave and good men regard her

admission into the Union as a matter of life and death. They

have been true to the Union under very severe trials.

The meaning of these words, and the contributions of my State in the development of this country's freedom, continue to hold immense importance with West Virginians today. I am proud to be a West Virginian. So, today, as we celebrate West Virginia's 142nd birthday, we remember our history, celebrate our present, and look with hope toward the future of our truly wonderful State.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation that would accelerate the deployment of advanced broadband internet access technologies in rural and underserved regions. This bipartisan legislation is very similar to bills that I have introduced in the last several Congresses. I want to thank Senators Snowe, Baucus, Burns, Schumer, Cantwell, and Bunning for co-sponsoring this bill.

The convergence of computing and communications has fundamentally and forever changed the way Americans live and work. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others share information through computer networks. We shop online. Some of us work at home, or in other locations, using networked computers to interact with our colleagues and associates. Distance learning and telemedicine provide important services in remote locations. In our personal lives we look to our networked computers for entertainment and to communicate with family and friends. These trends are accelerating dramatically.

A decade ago, telephone-based low-bandwidth services met most of our limited data communications needs. Today this technology is obsolete. Most businesses and many individuals find that they require the ability to transmit information much faster, using what is commonly known as broadband communications. Several technologies compete to provide customers with broadband communications. Among the most prominent are optical fiber, wireless, digital-subscriber lines, cable modems, power line transmission, and satellites.

Indeed, as the need for faster services compounds, the technologies must be improved and even the definition of broadband communications must be revised and updated. The now-obsolete telephone-based systems transmit data at up to 56 thousand bits per second. Today, internet service providers commonly install first generation broadband systems that transmit data at rates between 256 thousand bits per second and 4 million bits per second. But we can now see clearly that these current- generation systems will be superseded by second-generation systems, already being installed in a few areas, which operate at data rates of up to 30 million bits per second. In other countries, services that transmit and receive data at 100 million bits per second are already available to individuals. Some industry experts predict that within 5 to 10 years there will be a substantial demand for systems that operate at 1 billion bits per second.

Despite the industry downturn over the past few years, America's telecommunications providers are working to make higher speed communications more widely available. Progress is fastest, and the business case for investment is most attractive, in affluent urban and suburban areas, especially newly developing areas. Rural areas are less fortunate. Low population densities, rugged terrain, and other factors make these areas difficult and expensive to serve. Similarly, the business case for providers to invest in underserved areas, mostly low income areas, is generally weak.

As was the case with electric power and telephone systems in the 20th century, financial incentives will be necessary to assure the extension of broadband communications infrastructure into rural and underserved regions. These incentives will also provide a substantial benefit to the American economy. In the same way that extending electric power systems into rural areas stimulated a new demand for electric appliances and other products, the wider availability of broadband communications will stimulate electronic commerce and new commercial services.

For my State of West Virginia, and other rural and low income States, the availability of advanced communications systems will allow residents to participate in the 21st century economy and have access to the economic and cultural benefits of urban living while retaining their cherished rural values and lifestyles.

The consequences of failing to act are serious. Businesses in infrastructure-rich regions will prosper at the expense of those in rural and underserved regions. New businesses will locate where the information infrastructure is strong. The migration of jobs to urban and affluent areas will accelerate and tax revenue in rural and underserved areas will continue to decline. Residents of West Virginia and other rural states will continue to be at an economic and educational disadvantage. The ``digital divide'' will widen and the gap between ``have'' and ``have-not'' regions will expand.

Decisions on how this country chooses to deploy information technology have the power to fundamentally transform the future of rural America. I firmly believe, and I am sure this view is shared by many of my colleagues, that rural communities deserve the same opportunities as their wealthier urban and suburban counterparts. We must make a commitment to them now, while there is still time, that their communications infrastructure will not always be a generation or more behind that of urban and suburban areas.

My bill would provide incentives for broadband deployment by allowing providers, under certain conditions, to treat their investments in broadband technologies as current-tax-year expenses. Under my legislation, the incentives provided by this bill would be differentiated to favor investments in technologies that will continue to meet communications needs further into the future.

Half of investments in systems that permit data to be received at rates of 1.0 million bits per second and transmitted at rates of 128 thousand bits per second would qualify. This is a substantial incentive to provide residents of rural and underserved areas the capabilities already enjoyed by individuals and businesses in urban and suburban areas.

Investments in systems that permit data to be received at 22 million bits per second and transmitted at 5 million bits per second would fully qualify. This more powerful incentive challenges internet service providers to provide the capabilities that they have already begun to introduce in urban and suburban areas. Forward-looking

providers will use this opportunity to invest in technologies that can be upgraded further as the demand grows.

Americans believe strongly in equal opportunity. This bill is just one part of an effort to make sure that all Americans have equal access to modern communications systems and the opportunities that those systems are bringing in the 21st century.

I hope that the Members of this body will support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation that would accelerate the deployment of advanced broadband internet access technologies in rural and underserved regions. This bipartisan legislation is very similar to bills that I have introduced in the last several Congresses. I want to thank Senators Snowe, Baucus, Burns, Schumer, Cantwell, and Bunning for co-sponsoring this bill.

The convergence of computing and communications has fundamentally and forever changed the way Americans live and work. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others share information through computer networks. We shop online. Some of us work at home, or in other locations, using networked computers to interact with our colleagues and associates. Distance learning and telemedicine provide important services in remote locations. In our personal lives we look to our networked computers for entertainment and to communicate with family and friends. These trends are accelerating dramatically.

A decade ago, telephone-based low-bandwidth services met most of our limited data communications needs. Today this technology is obsolete. Most businesses and many individuals find that they require the ability to transmit information much faster, using what is commonly known as broadband communications. Several technologies compete to provide customers with broadband communications. Among the most prominent are optical fiber, wireless, digital-subscriber lines, cable modems, power line transmission, and satellites.

Indeed, as the need for faster services compounds, the technologies must be improved and even the definition of broadband communications must be revised and updated. The now-obsolete telephone-based systems transmit data at up to 56 thousand bits per second. Today, internet service providers commonly install first generation broadband systems that transmit data at rates between 256 thousand bits per second and 4 million bits per second. But we can now see clearly that these current- generation systems will be superseded by second-generation systems, already being installed in a few areas, which operate at data rates of up to 30 million bits per second. In other countries, services that transmit and receive data at 100 million bits per second are already available to individuals. Some industry experts predict that within 5 to 10 years there will be a substantial demand for systems that operate at 1 billion bits per second.

Despite the industry downturn over the past few years, America's telecommunications providers are working to make higher speed communications more widely available. Progress is fastest, and the business case for investment is most attractive, in affluent urban and suburban areas, especially newly developing areas. Rural areas are less fortunate. Low population densities, rugged terrain, and other factors make these areas difficult and expensive to serve. Similarly, the business case for providers to invest in underserved areas, mostly low income areas, is generally weak.

As was the case with electric power and telephone systems in the 20th century, financial incentives will be necessary to assure the extension of broadband communications infrastructure into rural and underserved regions. These incentives will also provide a substantial benefit to the American economy. In the same way that extending electric power systems into rural areas stimulated a new demand for electric appliances and other products, the wider availability of broadband communications will stimulate electronic commerce and new commercial services.

For my State of West Virginia, and other rural and low income States, the availability of advanced communications systems will allow residents to participate in the 21st century economy and have access to the economic and cultural benefits of urban living while retaining their cherished rural values and lifestyles.

The consequences of failing to act are serious. Businesses in infrastructure-rich regions will prosper at the expense of those in rural and underserved regions. New businesses will locate where the information infrastructure is strong. The migration of jobs to urban and affluent areas will accelerate and tax revenue in rural and underserved areas will continue to decline. Residents of West Virginia and other rural states will continue to be at an economic and educational disadvantage. The ``digital divide'' will widen and the gap between ``have'' and ``have-not'' regions will expand.

Decisions on how this country chooses to deploy information technology have the power to fundamentally transform the future of rural America. I firmly believe, and I am sure this view is shared by many of my colleagues, that rural communities deserve the same opportunities as their wealthier urban and suburban counterparts. We must make a commitment to them now, while there is still time, that their communications infrastructure will not always be a generation or more behind that of urban and suburban areas.

My bill would provide incentives for broadband deployment by allowing providers, under certain conditions, to treat their investments in broadband technologies as current-tax-year expenses. Under my legislation, the incentives provided by this bill would be differentiated to favor investments in technologies that will continue to meet communications needs further into the future.

Half of investments in systems that permit data to be received at rates of 1.0 million bits per second and transmitted at rates of 128 thousand bits per second would qualify. This is a substantial incentive to provide residents of rural and underserved areas the capabilities already enjoyed by individuals and businesses in urban and suburban areas.

Investments in systems that permit data to be received at 22 million bits per second and transmitted at 5 million bits per second would fully qualify. This more powerful incentive challenges internet service providers to provide the capabilities that they have already begun to introduce in urban and suburban areas. Forward-looking

providers will use this opportunity to invest in technologies that can be upgraded further as the demand grows.

Americans believe strongly in equal opportunity. This bill is just one part of an effort to make sure that all Americans have equal access to modern communications systems and the opportunities that those systems are bringing in the 21st century.

I hope that the Members of this body will support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I speak as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I oppose the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I purposely highlight that position on the Intelligence Committee because it is Mr. Bolton's pattern of attempting to distort and to misuse intelligence that is primary as a reason for my opposing his nomination. I have many reasons to oppose his nomination, but I will restrict myself to my work on the Intelligence Committee.

Senator Biden and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee have walked through some of these facts, although perhaps not all of them yet, related to Mr. Bolton. So I will not go into all of the details. I do intend to provide some background and expand on at least one critical issue. I want to explain why this issue should matter to my colleagues and why Mr. Bolton's actions should disqualify him from this position.

As my colleagues know, beginning in June of 2003, the Senate Intelligence Committee undertook an exhaustive inquiry into the intelligence concerning Iraq prior to the war. After more than a year, the committee unanimously approved a scathing 511 page report describing the intelligence community's systematic failures, particularly on issues related to weapons of mass destruction. One of the central issues to the committee's review was the question of ``whether any influence was brought to bear on anyone to shape their analysis to support policy objectives.''

It was a question so important, in fact, and so fundamental to our committee's oversight role that answering it was one of the four specific tasks laid out by Chairman Roberts and me at the beginning of this inquiry.

The issue of maintaining objectivity goes to the very heart of intelligence and intelligence oversight. Our intelligence agencies are charged with gathering information around the world and then objectively analyzing the information and providing it to the rest of the Government. Intelligence consumers, then, rely on that intelligence for a variety of activities. Often, that information forms the foundation of the very national security policies we depend upon to keep our country safe. It is absolutely essential that our intelligence is objective, independent, and accurate. If it is not, then the system does not work, we waste billions of dollars each year, and we end up making a critical national security decision or a series of them based upon flawed assumptions.

In the extreme, intelligence that is manipulated or shaped to fit preconceived conditions could lead the country into a war that we should not be fighting. This, of course, was the concern that many of us had when we began our investigation of prewar intelligence. It was a central point of the committee's review--a central point. It was something we pursued aggressively. In that case, the committee did not find evidence that the administration officials as a whole attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to specifically change their judgments--specifically change their judgments--relating to Iraq's WMD. I supported that finding, although in my additional views I described what I thought was a more pervasive environment of pressure, created prior to the war, to reach conclusions that supported the administration's policies.

I describe this effort now, however, not to revisit these issues that we investigated but to impress upon my colleagues and the public how serious it is when policymakers are accused of attempting to manipulate the intelligence process. This is behavior we cannot tolerate, and this is the pattern of behavior Mr. Bolton has exhibited during his tenure as Under Secretary of State. As I said, Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, and others have done a superb job in describing the specific incidents. Let me add a few points to provide context for these episodes.

First, I want everyone to understand that the Intelligence Committee was aware of these allegations long before Mr. Bolton was nominated to this job. These are not incidents dredged up after he had been nominated.

The committee's Iraq report briefly mentions the case of an INR analyst--that is, the State Department intelligence analyst--who had the courage to stand up in a committee hearing and acknowledge what he described as political pressure. When the committee staff interviewed this analyst, they discovered that the instance involved Cuba and not Iraq. That being the case, the committee did not pursue a review because we were doing Iraq, not Cuba.

Unfortunately, the committee's final report described and commented on this incident without conducting a

complete investigation of the facts. It is now clear from the record developed by the Foreign Relations Committee in their excellent work that Under Secretary Bolton attempted to exact retribution against this intelligence analyst because his analysis did not support Mr. Bolton's views.

As with the case of the INR analyst, the State Department analyst, the committee previously was aware of the allegations of politicization related to the former National Intelligence Officer for Latin America. We knew about it. In the course of a briefing to the committee staff in November of 2004, this individual described an effort to have him removed because his analysis was at odds with the views of certain policymakers, including Secretary Bolton. Unfortunately, the committee did not follow up on these allegations until March, when the minority staff on the committee began scheduling interviews. I speak now of the Intelligence Committee, not the Foreign Relations Committee. It is clear from these interviews that the minority staff on the Intelligence Committee did and from the much more extensive work done by the Foreign Relations Committee that Under Secretary Bolton and others, particularly Otto Reich, who was Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, sought to have the National Intelligence Officer reassigned because his analysis did not support their policies.

These two episodes, in my mind, are enough to disqualify Mr. Bolton from this position. But there is more to this pattern of abusing the intelligence process. During the course of the nomination process, we learned that on at least 10 occasions, Mr. Bolton had sought to learn the identity of 19 U.S. persons--this has been discussed on the Senate floor, but I am going to add something--19 U.S. persons mentioned in intelligence reports. There has been a great deal of speculation as to why he wanted these names, whether it was proper to seek this information.

To answer these questions, Chairman Lugar asked Chairman Roberts and me to solicit information from the appropriate agencies. Eventually-- eventually--eventually, the new Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, GEN Michael Hayden, briefed Senator Roberts and myself. He did not brief Senator Lugar and Senator Biden--Chairman Lugar and Ranking Member Biden. That is a mystery to me. I don't understand that. But he briefed us on the content of the intelligence in question.

Let me be clear. We did not receive the names, the very names provided to Under Secretary Bolton--which is an extraordinary sense of control of one branch of Government over another. We did not receive those names. We read everything associated with those names but not the names themselves. They were not given to us.

Based on my limited review, I noted from the rest of the context nothing improper about the request. That, however, was not the end of the story. As part of our effort to respond to Chairman Lugar's request for information, the committee staff interviewed several individuals with knowledge of Under Secretary Bolton's request for these names. During one of those interviews, a senior member of his staff described actions Under Secretary Bolton took after he received one of those names.

According to this individual, upon receiving the name from the National Security Agency, the NSA, Under Secretary Bolton shared that information with another State Department official. The reasons for this action are not clear, but it seems inconsistent with the stated reasons for obtaining the name.

Let me explain. I must take a moment to describe the information we are talking about and put Mr. Bolton's action in some context. When a U.S. intelligence agency--in this case, the National Security Agency-- receives a report that includes information concerning a U.S. person, that information is, so to speak, minimized--that is the technical term--for privacy reasons, meaning that the U.S. name is replaced with a generic designation such as ``named U.S. Government official,'' or ``named U.S. citizen,'' but that is all. Remember, this is information that is already classified at the highest levels, or it would not receive this treatment--classified at the highest levels and shared with a very limited number of people in order to protect the source of that information. The U.S. name is even more closely guarded and not provided unless an appropriately cleared official reading that intelligence report makes a specific request for it in order to better understand the foreign intelligence, and it is only intelligence that that person can be concerned with.

The rules for dealing with this kind of comprehensive information are very strict. It is only provided on a case-by-case basis at the request of a specific individual. The National Security Agency has a formal and very well established procedure for processing such requests and for providing the names to the requester.

When a decision is made to release the name, it is transmitted with a cover sheet with the following admonition:

Request no further action be taken on this information

without prior approval of the National Security Agency.

Probably that would not have to be there because anybody at that level understands that already, but nevertheless it is there, front and center. This language is clear. This language is unambiguous. But Mr. Bolton apparently disregarded it. Neither the NSA, the National Security Agency, nor the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research has a record of him seeking the necessary approval to further disseminate the name. Now his defenders say he never saw that restriction. I don't know if that is accurate, but I do know that it is entirely irrelevant because he knew about that. Anybody who is experienced to receive intelligence at that level has to know that.

He knew the classification of the intercepts. He knew the sensitivity of information referencing U.S. persons. He knew the special procedures he had to go through to get that name. He knew the requirement to closely guard this information, even if he had not seen the specific language on the transmittal letter. Any attempt to place blame for his action on others is thinly veiled, sad, and wrong.

I still have questions about this episode, but it appears to me on its face that he violated the restrictions placed on this information by the National Security Agency. Even if we discover his actions were technically not a security violation, if by a 1 in 1,000 percent chance it turned out to be true, it emphasizes something even worse, and that is a cavalier attitude to be, therefore, projected into the future in dealing with extremely sensitive intelligence information.

This is part of a pattern which shows a blatant disregard for the importance of the intelligence process which is the spear tip of this Nation's internal security and security around the world and the sensitivity of the information contained in intelligence products.

When viewed collectively, these actions demonstrate Mr. Bolton's unfitness for this position. I thereby urge my colleagues to oppose his confirmation. I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield to the Senator.

I say to the Senator from Connecticut it is not only appropriate, but it is necessary. The Senator from Connecticut described the very condition of its sensitivity and its importance and therefore the importance of its place in this nomination consideration.

The fact that only Senator Roberts and myself were briefed for a long period of time is part of the way the administration either shares very sensitive information which they do not want other committee members to have--which, of course, makes other committee members furious, as it would me, but they cannot take chances--but what that emphasizes is the importance and the confidentiality and the high degree of sensitivity of the information. When you are putting somebody potentially into the United Nations to effect policy, to reflect the views of the President more directly than the President can do on a daily basis, to reflect the views of the rest of the world toward the United States, this kind of thing must be available to Senator Roberts and myself and, just as importantly, to Senator Lugar as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for Heavens' sake, and Senator Joe Biden, the ranking member.

That is correct. And that is not available.

No, it was not available and it is part of this pattern.

We have to decide if there are two branches of Government or one.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to mandate that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) extend the offering of war risk insurance through August 31, 2007, to our Nation's air carriers. I am very pleased that Senator Burns, the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, has agreed to co-sponsor this legislation.

Prior to September 11, 2001, war risk insurance was generally attainable and affordable for U.S. airlines. But, as we know, that day changed everything for America. No industry was more dramatically and fundamentally changed than the U.S. aviation industry. Recognizing that the commercial insurance market was not willing to provide war risk insurance to the airline industry in the immediate aftermath of September 11, Congress required the FAA provide war risk insurance to U.S. air carriers. We expected that in time U.S. air carriers would be able to obtain commercial war risk insurance. Unfortunately, the commercial war risk insurance market has priced its products beyond the means of our air carriers. According to the Air Transport Association, a return to the commercial market to obtain war risk insurance could cost U.S. airlines $600 million to $700 million a year, up from the current $140 million. Because of the lack of a vibrant competitive commercial market, last year, Congress extended its mandate that the FAA provide this insurance.

In a report to Congress, the FAA noted that even though war risk insurance is available in the private market, it is offered on terms that the industry just cannot afford. My bill would mandate the continuation of this vital program through August 31, 2008. In time, we should expect the private market to offer this coverage, but the reality is that the insurance industry continues to seek exorbitant rates for this coverage. The market has failed and it is the government's responsibility to provide this insurance as we have done in previous times of war.

The financial conditions faced by domestic airlines have seen little, if any, improvement. This legislation is supported by the low-cost carriers who are the healthiest companies in the industry, as they know that their profitability would be at risk if they were forced to go to commercial market for this insurance at this time. The current commercial market is simply unable to provide adequate war-risk coverage without unreasonable cost to airlines. For airlines, private coverage would mean annual payment increases of millions of dollars. Even with FAA insurance coverage, airlines are projected to lose $5.5 billion this year. This legislation will help the airlines weather their current financial crisis. If U.S. airlines were forced to go to the commercial market for this insurance, we would likely see more airlines in bankruptcy or cease to exist at all.

I believe that airlines remain a prime targets for terrorist acts. It is because of this threat that the commercial insurance market is unaffordable for the airlines. My legislation seeks to address a pressing problem facing one of the most critical industries in the country. My bill is one small but important measure that Congress can take to make sure our nation has a vibrant and financially secure airline industry.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to mandate that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) extend the offering of war risk insurance through August 31, 2007, to our Nation's air carriers. I am very pleased that Senator Burns, the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, has agreed to co-sponsor this legislation.

Prior to September 11, 2001, war risk insurance was generally attainable and affordable for U.S. airlines. But, as we know, that day changed everything for America. No industry was more dramatically and fundamentally changed than the U.S. aviation industry. Recognizing that the commercial insurance market was not willing to provide war risk insurance to the airline industry in the immediate aftermath of September 11, Congress required the FAA provide war risk insurance to U.S. air carriers. We expected that in time U.S. air carriers would be able to obtain commercial war risk insurance. Unfortunately, the commercial war risk insurance market has priced its products beyond the means of our air carriers. According to the Air Transport Association, a return to the commercial market to obtain war risk insurance could cost U.S. airlines $600 million to $700 million a year, up from the current $140 million. Because of the lack of a vibrant competitive commercial market, last year, Congress extended its mandate that the FAA provide this insurance.

In a report to Congress, the FAA noted that even though war risk insurance is available in the private market, it is offered on terms that the industry just cannot afford. My bill would mandate the continuation of this vital program through August 31, 2008. In time, we should expect the private market to offer this coverage, but the reality is that the insurance industry continues to seek exorbitant rates for this coverage. The market has failed and it is the government's responsibility to provide this insurance as we have done in previous times of war.

The financial conditions faced by domestic airlines have seen little, if any, improvement. This legislation is supported by the low-cost carriers who are the healthiest companies in the industry, as they know that their profitability would be at risk if they were forced to go to commercial market for this insurance at this time. The current commercial market is simply unable to provide adequate war-risk coverage without unreasonable cost to airlines. For airlines, private coverage would mean annual payment increases of millions of dollars. Even with FAA insurance coverage, airlines are projected to lose $5.5 billion this year. This legislation will help the airlines weather their current financial crisis. If U.S. airlines were forced to go to the commercial market for this insurance, we would likely see more airlines in bankruptcy or cease to exist at all.

I believe that airlines remain a prime targets for terrorist acts. It is because of this threat that the commercial insurance market is unaffordable for the airlines. My legislation seeks to address a pressing problem facing one of the most critical industries in the country. My bill is one small but important measure that Congress can take to make sure our nation has a vibrant and financially secure airline industry.

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

Mr. President, it is my honor today to join the distinguished cochairmen of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye, along with our colleagues Senators Byron Dorgan, Frank Lautenberg, Mark Pryor, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer, to introduce the Transportation Security Improvements Act of 2005. This is a vitally important contribution to the security of all Americans, and I commend it to my colleagues for their consideration.

The Transportation Security Improvements Act will increase authorizations for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, by more than $19 billion through fiscal year 2008, and will forthrightly address continuing vulnerabilities in the security of our various transportation modes that Congress and the administration have as yet virtually ignored.

Americans were shocked to learn just how lax our aviation security was on September 11. Even those terrorists on official Government watch lists, who should have been barred from entering the United States, were able to board planes that they then turned into weapons without any significant interference from airport security staffs. As a wounded Nation tried to overcome the horrors of that day, Congress immediately went about fixing what was so obviously wrong with our aviation security.

Now, as we approach the fourth anniversary of that fateful day, Americans are regaining their confidence about aviation security. There is still work to be done, and my colleagues and I endeavor in this bill to further secure air travel. Still, we have done much to improve domestic aviation security by improving the security procedures we demand of airlines and airport personnel both here and abroad. We need to remain vigilant and avoid the inexcusable error of believing we have done all that needs to be done. We must act with the knowledge that our enemies will continue to probe the system they so successfully breached in 2001 to find new and additional opportunities to kill and terrorize Americans.

What my colleagues and I also have realized for some time is that in devoting our energy and resources to aviation security we have been, in a manner of speaking, ``fighting the last war.'' While the aviation sector is prepared for today's threats, congressional action regarding the level of security of our other transportation modes is not much changed from the blissfully naive standards of September 10.

To be fair, industries in the other transportation modes have worked hard to improve the security of their respective sectors. The relatively little money Congress and the administration have dedicated to improving transportation security has been put to good use. Industry and Government working together, even given the overwhelming scope of the threat, have improved transportation security and protected the lives and property of Americans. We just have not done enough.

The Transportation Security Improvements Act seeks to make overdue improvements to the overall security of this Nation's vast transportation infrastructure. Our bill addresses the security practices and requirements of our Nation's freight and passenger rail network, as well as those of our ocean-going and inland ports, the trucking industry, intercity buses, and the special risks of hazardous materials transportation, regardless of the mode of transportation. It makes the TSA responsible for coordinating international and domestic cargo security. It calls on TSA to work cooperatively with stakeholders in the various transportation modes on preparedness and incident response, and establishes new maritime and land security command procedures. Perhaps most importantly, we acknowledge the need of TSA management to deploy such human resources as it sees fit to protect Americans' lives and property, and it removes the current statutory cap on the agency of 45,000 full-time employees.

To continue the TSA's efforts to improve aviation security, our bill authorizes $15.75 billion over the next 3 fiscal years to fully fund key security programs to defend our Nation's air transportation system. In lieu of recent reports regarding the performance of the airport screening workforce, our bill could not be more timely. We have

included provisions to provide TSA greater flexibility in meeting the staffing needs of screening checkpoints through elimination of an arbitrary staffing cap that was put in place shortly after the agency was created, while also requiring TSA to review the adequacy of recurrent training for these employees. With the difficult economic environment currently faced by the airline industry, the bill takes steps to relieve the carriers of some of the burden that they face through collection of these fees. We would prohibit increasing aviation security fees without Congressional review and approval, while requiring TSA to consider alternative means of collecting such fees. Finally, the bill prohibits the certification of any foreign repair stations until TSA and FAA strengthen the oversight of such facilities by reviewing, auditing and developing regulations to ensure an adequate level of safety and security.

To dramatically improve maritime and land security, we increase funding by $1.099 billion to develop and implement cargo screening and inspection standards, with special attention given to high-risk cargoes. We authorize 10 additional Joint Operation Command Centers to supplement the current positive interagency and public-private cooperation at our ports. We streamline procedures for foreign vessels and those with Coast Guard-certified security plans, require funding for port security technology improvements, and impose a January 2006 deadline for development of a comprehensive Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing Program.

We assist our railroads and hazardous materials shippers in maintaining and improving security along the Nation's nearly 150,000 miles of freight and passenger rail infrastructure. We increase rail security funding by nearly $800 million over 3 years, and with those funds require the TSA to conduct a comprehensive security threat assessment that I first advocated in October 2001. We authorize grants to Amtrak and our freight railroads for overall security improvements, and establish a revamped security training program for railroad employees. Our legislation would allow Amtrak to make specific and long-overdue security improvements along its well-traveled Northeast corridor, and it authorizes development of baggage, passenger, and cargo screening programs, as well as reviews of procedures used by foreign railroads and research into additional improvements.

We seek in this legislation to improve the security of the highway system that is the envy of the world. Our bill makes it a priority to better protect and address the unique security vulnerabilities of intercity buses and their passengers. This is a topic first brought to the attention of Congress by our former colleague Max Cleland, and which I hope we can now see enacted into law as a rightful part of his legacy of service to this country. We further seek to improve highway security by imposing the same level of background checks on foreign drivers transporting hazardous materials as we already require of American drivers. We require vehicles carrying hazardous materials to be equipped with wireless communications equipment, and that their drivers have established plans for the use of alternate routes. We provide funding for the TSA to conduct security inspections of our pipeline network, to develop a pipeline incident response plan, and to analyze the security plans in place for hazmat carriers. We create a public sector response center, and provide for the distribution of emergency wireless communications equipment to first responders, hazmat carriers, and TSA personnel.

Our constituents have sent us here, first and foremost, to protect them. The ruthless attacks of September 11, 2001, exposed inexcusable gaps in our efforts in that regard. At a time when the air in this city is acrid with accusation and acrimony, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation a priority for quick passage, and an example of the good work this institution can do when we remember why Americans elected us. I ask my colleagues to join us in this effort, and I ask the majority leader to find time on the Senate Calendar for its expeditious consideration by the full Senate.

Mr. President, it is my honor today to join the distinguished cochairmen of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye, along with our colleagues Senators Byron Dorgan, Frank Lautenberg, Mark Pryor, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer, to introduce the Transportation Security Improvements Act of 2005. This is a vitally important contribution to the security of all Americans, and I commend it to my colleagues for their consideration.

The Transportation Security Improvements Act will increase authorizations for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, by more than $19 billion through fiscal year 2008, and will forthrightly address continuing vulnerabilities in the security of our various transportation modes that Congress and the administration have as yet virtually ignored.

Americans were shocked to learn just how lax our aviation security was on September 11. Even those terrorists on official Government watch lists, who should have been barred from entering the United States, were able to board planes that they then turned into weapons without any significant interference from airport security staffs. As a wounded Nation tried to overcome the horrors of that day, Congress immediately went about fixing what was so obviously wrong with our aviation security.

Now, as we approach the fourth anniversary of that fateful day, Americans are regaining their confidence about aviation security. There is still work to be done, and my colleagues and I endeavor in this bill to further secure air travel. Still, we have done much to improve domestic aviation security by improving the security procedures we demand of airlines and airport personnel both here and abroad. We need to remain vigilant and avoid the inexcusable error of believing we have done all that needs to be done. We must act with the knowledge that our enemies will continue to probe the system they so successfully breached in 2001 to find new and additional opportunities to kill and terrorize Americans.

What my colleagues and I also have realized for some time is that in devoting our energy and resources to aviation security we have been, in a manner of speaking, ``fighting the last war.'' While the aviation sector is prepared for today's threats, congressional action regarding the level of security of our other transportation modes is not much changed from the blissfully naive standards of September 10.

To be fair, industries in the other transportation modes have worked hard to improve the security of their respective sectors. The relatively little money Congress and the administration have dedicated to improving transportation security has been put to good use. Industry and Government working together, even given the overwhelming scope of the threat, have improved transportation security and protected the lives and property of Americans. We just have not done enough.

The Transportation Security Improvements Act seeks to make overdue improvements to the overall security of this Nation's vast transportation infrastructure. Our bill addresses the security practices and requirements of our Nation's freight and passenger rail network, as well as those of our ocean-going and inland ports, the trucking industry, intercity buses, and the special risks of hazardous materials transportation, regardless of the mode of transportation. It makes the TSA responsible for coordinating international and domestic cargo security. It calls on TSA to work cooperatively with stakeholders in the various transportation modes on preparedness and incident response, and establishes new maritime and land security command procedures. Perhaps most importantly, we acknowledge the need of TSA management to deploy such human resources as it sees fit to protect Americans' lives and property, and it removes the current statutory cap on the agency of 45,000 full-time employees.

To continue the TSA's efforts to improve aviation security, our bill authorizes $15.75 billion over the next 3 fiscal years to fully fund key security programs to defend our Nation's air transportation system. In lieu of recent reports regarding the performance of the airport screening workforce, our bill could not be more timely. We have

included provisions to provide TSA greater flexibility in meeting the staffing needs of screening checkpoints through elimination of an arbitrary staffing cap that was put in place shortly after the agency was created, while also requiring TSA to review the adequacy of recurrent training for these employees. With the difficult economic environment currently faced by the airline industry, the bill takes steps to relieve the carriers of some of the burden that they face through collection of these fees. We would prohibit increasing aviation security fees without Congressional review and approval, while requiring TSA to consider alternative means of collecting such fees. Finally, the bill prohibits the certification of any foreign repair stations until TSA and FAA strengthen the oversight of such facilities by reviewing, auditing and developing regulations to ensure an adequate level of safety and security.

To dramatically improve maritime and land security, we increase funding by $1.099 billion to develop and implement cargo screening and inspection standards, with special attention given to high-risk cargoes. We authorize 10 additional Joint Operation Command Centers to supplement the current positive interagency and public-private cooperation at our ports. We streamline procedures for foreign vessels and those with Coast Guard-certified security plans, require funding for port security technology improvements, and impose a January 2006 deadline for development of a comprehensive Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing Program.

We assist our railroads and hazardous materials shippers in maintaining and improving security along the Nation's nearly 150,000 miles of freight and passenger rail infrastructure. We increase rail security funding by nearly $800 million over 3 years, and with those funds require the TSA to conduct a comprehensive security threat assessment that I first advocated in October 2001. We authorize grants to Amtrak and our freight railroads for overall security improvements, and establish a revamped security training program for railroad employees. Our legislation would allow Amtrak to make specific and long-overdue security improvements along its well-traveled Northeast corridor, and it authorizes development of baggage, passenger, and cargo screening programs, as well as reviews of procedures used by foreign railroads and research into additional improvements.

We seek in this legislation to improve the security of the highway system that is the envy of the world. Our bill makes it a priority to better protect and address the unique security vulnerabilities of intercity buses and their passengers. This is a topic first brought to the attention of Congress by our former colleague Max Cleland, and which I hope we can now see enacted into law as a rightful part of his legacy of service to this country. We further seek to improve highway security by imposing the same level of background checks on foreign drivers transporting hazardous materials as we already require of American drivers. We require vehicles carrying hazardous materials to be equipped with wireless communications equipment, and that their drivers have established plans for the use of alternate routes. We provide funding for the TSA to conduct security inspections of our pipeline network, to develop a pipeline incident response plan, and to analyze the security plans in place for hazmat carriers. We create a public sector response center, and provide for the distribution of emergency wireless communications equipment to first responders, hazmat carriers, and TSA personnel.

Our constituents have sent us here, first and foremost, to protect them. The ruthless attacks of September 11, 2001, exposed inexcusable gaps in our efforts in that regard. At a time when the air in this city is acrid with accusation and acrimony, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation a priority for quick passage, and an example of the good work this institution can do when we remember why Americans elected us. I ask my colleagues to join us in this effort, and I ask the majority leader to find time on the Senate Calendar for its expeditious consideration by the full Senate.

Mr. President, our annual budget should be a blueprint of our Nation's priorities. It should be a statement of our collective values and contain positive initiatives for growing our economy and preparing a better future for our children. Unfortunately, this budget does not achieve any of these objectives. This budget makes the Federal deficit worse than if we had done nothing, which means we will pass on an even greater burden of debt to our children and grandchildren. This blueprint also reflects a misguided set of priorities that sends a clear message to the least among us--our poor children, our disabled, and our elderly--that they are not as important as our wealthy.

It is unacceptable--and truly stunning--that Congress is being confronted with a budget resolution that contains $10 billion in cuts to Medicaid, a health care program for our most vulnerable citizens, while simultaneously offering an additional $106 billion in tax breaks, much of which is designated for our Nation's wealthiest citizens. Where is the justice in these numbers?

Last month, a bipartisan majority in the Senate rejected any cuts to Medicaid. Members on both sides of the aisle said no. But the Republican leadership ignored the result. On Tuesday, an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority in the House voted 348 to 72 to strike the Medicaid cuts from the budget. Again, the Republican leadership ignored the result, ignored what a majority of Members said. Now we are being asked once again to vote for these arbitrary cuts, even though we have already made our wishes and those of our constituencies known.

Because of the budget resolution before us, West Virginia could lose more than $84 million in Federal Medicaid funds over the next 5 years. This would put over 350,000 West Virginians who depend on Medicaid at significant risk for benefit reductions, increased cost-sharing, or the loss of health care coverage altogether.

These cuts are on top of the numerous unfunded mandates that the Federal Government has passed down in recent years. Twenty-nine States, including West Virginia, are facing a drop in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, next year because of a change in the statutory formula used to compute FMAP. This budget means that West Virginia will see a loss of approximately $17 million next year on top of the $36 million in Federal funds the State is already slated to lose under current law. I have said it before, and I will say it again--the hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and clinics in my State simply cannot afford to absorb cuts of this magnitude.

How can we suggest cutting $10 billion from such basic support for vulnerable individuals in the same legislation that is seeking over $100 billion in tax cuts?

This budget reflects the wrong priorities, the wrong principles, and the wrong decisions. These are priorities that I cannot--and refuse to--vote for.

Our most vulnerable citizens should not be a target for budget cuts, especially when we are offering $106 billion in tax breaks in the very same budget, a significant portion of which are directed to wealthy individuals who have

been treated to large tax cuts since 2001.

This resolution is wrong for West Virginia and it is wrong for our country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. President, I am proud today with Senator Biden and several of our colleagues to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) program, which has been so vitally important to my State of West Virginia. The bill authorizes $1.15 billion to fund operations of the U.S. Department of Justice's COPS Office and to put 50,000 new police officers on the streets of the United States through 2011. I am a cosponsor of this bill because I understood how important this program could be when we passed it originally as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime bill, because I've seen how important it is to my State of West Virginia, and because I know that there are few government programs that have done more to make the whole country safer and more secure.

President Clinton had a goal of placing 100,000 new police officers on our streets. As hard as it is to believe, there are opponents of the COPS program. In an attempt to defend their desire to end the program, they are quick to point out that the goal has been met, and even exceeded. They would have you believe that the Federal Government should get out of the business of helping local law enforcement do their jobs. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when police departments have taken on seemingly innumerable crucial responsibilities in addition to their roles in fighting crime, plans to close out this program have been included in the President's budget each year since he took office. For the Fiscal Year 2006 budget, funding for hiring new officers was zeroed out, and funds for ongoing projects were slashed by varying degrees.

There is simply no justification for not continuing the successes of this program. The COPS program has allowed State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in all 50 States and the District of Columbia to hire 118,000 new officers since 1994. The violent

crime rate has dropped 30 percent in the same period. Recently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made the connection himself, commenting that these officers were put on the street and crime is at a thirty-year low.

The COPS program has sent more than $40 million to my home State of West Virginia, allowing 166 jurisdictions to hire nearly 700 officers. There is no way that the citizens of my State could afford to hire and train this many officers in this amount of time, and no feasible way to replace the benefits the COPS program produces. Many of these towns had never had their own police officers before this, and I can tell you that the presence of those officers has changed lives for the better throughout my State.

West Virginia has also benefited from some specialized programs administered by the COPS Office. Our schools, which were once refuges from crime and danger, now have safety and security concerns best handled by trained law enforcement professionals. The COPS in Schools (CIS) program has provided $2 million to hire 20 school resource officers (SROs). In 2004 alone we received more than $457,000 to hire four SROs. Law enforcement agencies in my State have also received $4.7 million in COPS technology grants, and were making headway on a burgeoning crisis in methamphetamine production with the COPS METH grant program. This assistance has allowed police in my State to tap into crime-fighting and data-sharing technologies, and helped protect my constituents from a drug problem spreading through rural America like wildfire.

I look forward to enactment of this legislation, and the new assistance it will bring to state and local law enforcement agencies throughout West Virginia. Specifically, this legislation will provide: $600 million per year through 2011 for 50,000 more cops across the country; $350 million per year for law enforcement technologies, including interoperable communications equipment, state-of-the-art DNA analysis, and computer crime mapping; and $200 million annually to hire new prosecutors, to finish the job our new officers have started.

I commend Senator Biden for his tireless work on behalf of law enforcement and I pledge to do all that I can to see this bill enacted for the good of the people of West Virginia and for all Americans.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and several of our colleagues in sponsoring the CLEAR ACT, a package of initiatives intended simultaneously to lessen this Nation's dependence on foreign oil and to promote a cleaner environment.

Throughout my time in the Senate, and indeed going back to my time as Governor of West Virginia, I have believed that the United States needed to have a comprehensive and responsible national energy policy, and that a vital part of that policy should be promoting technologies and domestic resources to loosen the grip foreign suppliers of energy have on our economy. Alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) that use them must be part of our energy policy. As a Senator, I have been very interested in expanding the availability of alternative fuels and have worked with a number of my colleagues and experts in industry, academia, and in the environmental movement on several initiatives to accelerate their use and availability.

The current high price of gasoline drives home the point that we must diversity our fuel supply. This issue is particularly important in West Virginia. Like many rural States, West Virginia has little public transportation, and most people must drive, often considerable distances, to work, to school, and to seek medical care. With every trip to the gas station and nearly every evening news report, West Virginians are reminded that our country is in the midst of an energy crisis. According to the American Automobile Association, the average price of gasoline has risen 23 percent in the past year. These increases have a serious impact on family budgets and on the economy in general.

Today, more than 60 percent of the petroleum we consume is imported. This adds to our economic problems and raises additional concerns about national security. We must work to reduce the consumption, or at least the growth in consumption, of petroleum-based fuels in the United States. Emissions from gasoline-powered automobiles are a major source of air pollution and of carbon dioxide, which is the major contributor to global climate change. While I believe our energy policy should work in concert with a transportation policy that encourages the use of mass transit, it is unlikely in the short-term that many West Virginians, or a significant number of other Americans, will be able to greatly reduce the amount they drive. The CLEAR ACT will help our Nation lessen its dependence on foreign oil and, because the amount Americans drive is likely to increase, contribute to an overall cleaner environment by substituting cleaner-burning alternatives to gasoline and diesel.

In the development of alternative fuels and AFVs, our Nation has been caught in what I've always thought of as the classic ``chicken and egg'' problem. Both alternative fuels and AFVs must be commercially available if the potential impact is to be achieved. Without the fueling infrastructure, wide commercial appeal of non-gasoline vehicles will top out before the market has reached its potential. The popularity of gasoline-electric hybrids demonstrates the public's hunger for alternatives to the rapidly rising price of gasoline and increasingly hazardous automobile emission. Appropriate tax incentives can address the equally important challenges of vehicle availability and infrastructure deployment. If consumers routinely see alternative fuels at reasonable prices at their local service stations, while also seeing reasonably-priced vehicles at dealerships, we know they will respond.

The CLEAR ACT provides the tax incentives that we need, and which I believe must be included in the comprehensive energy policy the Senate will soon consider. In closing, let me thank my friends Senator Hatch and Senator Jeffords, with whom I've worked on this for many years. I am pleased as well to see that a growing number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are joining us in this effort to improve our Nation's energy, transportation, and environmental policy. I commend this bill to the remainder of the Senate, and look forward to its inclusion in the Energy bill we will take up later in the year.

Mr. President, I am proud today with Senator Biden and several of our colleagues to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) program, which has been so vitally important to my State of West Virginia. The bill authorizes $1.15 billion to fund operations of the U.S. Department of Justice's COPS Office and to put 50,000 new police officers on the streets of the United States through 2011. I am a cosponsor of this bill because I understood how important this program could be when we passed it originally as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime bill, because I've seen how important it is to my State of West Virginia, and because I know that there are few government programs that have done more to make the whole country safer and more secure.

President Clinton had a goal of placing 100,000 new police officers on our streets. As hard as it is to believe, there are opponents of the COPS program. In an attempt to defend their desire to end the program, they are quick to point out that the goal has been met, and even exceeded. They would have you believe that the Federal Government should get out of the business of helping local law enforcement do their jobs. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when police departments have taken on seemingly innumerable crucial responsibilities in addition to their roles in fighting crime, plans to close out this program have been included in the President's budget each year since he took office. For the Fiscal Year 2006 budget, funding for hiring new officers was zeroed out, and funds for ongoing projects were slashed by varying degrees.

There is simply no justification for not continuing the successes of this program. The COPS program has allowed State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in all 50 States and the District of Columbia to hire 118,000 new officers since 1994. The violent

crime rate has dropped 30 percent in the same period. Recently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made the connection himself, commenting that these officers were put on the street and crime is at a thirty-year low.

The COPS program has sent more than $40 million to my home State of West Virginia, allowing 166 jurisdictions to hire nearly 700 officers. There is no way that the citizens of my State could afford to hire and train this many officers in this amount of time, and no feasible way to replace the benefits the COPS program produces. Many of these towns had never had their own police officers before this, and I can tell you that the presence of those officers has changed lives for the better throughout my State.

West Virginia has also benefited from some specialized programs administered by the COPS Office. Our schools, which were once refuges from crime and danger, now have safety and security concerns best handled by trained law enforcement professionals. The COPS in Schools (CIS) program has provided $2 million to hire 20 school resource officers (SROs). In 2004 alone we received more than $457,000 to hire four SROs. Law enforcement agencies in my State have also received $4.7 million in COPS technology grants, and were making headway on a burgeoning crisis in methamphetamine production with the COPS METH grant program. This assistance has allowed police in my State to tap into crime-fighting and data-sharing technologies, and helped protect my constituents from a drug problem spreading through rural America like wildfire.

I look forward to enactment of this legislation, and the new assistance it will bring to state and local law enforcement agencies throughout West Virginia. Specifically, this legislation will provide: $600 million per year through 2011 for 50,000 more cops across the country; $350 million per year for law enforcement technologies, including interoperable communications equipment, state-of-the-art DNA analysis, and computer crime mapping; and $200 million annually to hire new prosecutors, to finish the job our new officers have started.

I commend Senator Biden for his tireless work on behalf of law enforcement and I pledge to do all that I can to see this bill enacted for the good of the people of West Virginia and for all Americans.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and several of our colleagues in sponsoring the CLEAR ACT, a package of initiatives intended simultaneously to lessen this Nation's dependence on foreign oil and to promote a cleaner environment.

Throughout my time in the Senate, and indeed going back to my time as Governor of West Virginia, I have believed that the United States needed to have a comprehensive and responsible national energy policy, and that a vital part of that policy should be promoting technologies and domestic resources to loosen the grip foreign suppliers of energy have on our economy. Alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) that use them must be part of our energy policy. As a Senator, I have been very interested in expanding the availability of alternative fuels and have worked with a number of my colleagues and experts in industry, academia, and in the environmental movement on several initiatives to accelerate their use and availability.

The current high price of gasoline drives home the point that we must diversity our fuel supply. This issue is particularly important in West Virginia. Like many rural States, West Virginia has little public transportation, and most people must drive, often considerable distances, to work, to school, and to seek medical care. With every trip to the gas station and nearly every evening news report, West Virginians are reminded that our country is in the midst of an energy crisis. According to the American Automobile Association, the average price of gasoline has risen 23 percent in the past year. These increases have a serious impact on family budgets and on the economy in general.

Today, more than 60 percent of the petroleum we consume is imported. This adds to our economic problems and raises additional concerns about national security. We must work to reduce the consumption, or at least the growth in consumption, of petroleum-based fuels in the United States. Emissions from gasoline-powered automobiles are a major source of air pollution and of carbon dioxide, which is the major contributor to global climate change. While I believe our energy policy should work in concert with a transportation policy that encourages the use of mass transit, it is unlikely in the short-term that many West Virginians, or a significant number of other Americans, will be able to greatly reduce the amount they drive. The CLEAR ACT will help our Nation lessen its dependence on foreign oil and, because the amount Americans drive is likely to increase, contribute to an overall cleaner environment by substituting cleaner-burning alternatives to gasoline and diesel.

In the development of alternative fuels and AFVs, our Nation has been caught in what I've always thought of as the classic ``chicken and egg'' problem. Both alternative fuels and AFVs must be commercially available if the potential impact is to be achieved. Without the fueling infrastructure, wide commercial appeal of non-gasoline vehicles will top out before the market has reached its potential. The popularity of gasoline-electric hybrids demonstrates the public's hunger for alternatives to the rapidly rising price of gasoline and increasingly hazardous automobile emission. Appropriate tax incentives can address the equally important challenges of vehicle availability and infrastructure deployment. If consumers routinely see alternative fuels at reasonable prices at their local service stations, while also seeing reasonably-priced vehicles at dealerships, we know they will respond.

The CLEAR ACT provides the tax incentives that we need, and which I believe must be included in the comprehensive energy policy the Senate will soon consider. In closing, let me thank my friends Senator Hatch and Senator Jeffords, with whom I've worked on this for many years. I am pleased as well to see that a growing number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are joining us in this effort to improve our Nation's energy, transportation, and environmental policy. I commend this bill to the remainder of the Senate, and look forward to its inclusion in the Energy bill we will take up later in the year.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join with my colleagues Senator Burns, Senator Dorgan, Senator Craig, Senator Dayton, Senator Vitter, Senator Johnson, Senator Thune, Senator Coleman, and Senator Baucus to introduce the Railroad Competition Act of 2005. This legislation encourages the competition and consumer protection in the freight railroad market that Congress intended when it partially deregulated the industry in 1980 with the passage of the Staggers Act.

Introduction of legislation in this vein is a bit of a ritual for this Senator. West Virginia industries depend on efficient and dependable rail service at fair prices to move their products to market. This is a perfectly reasonable goal. However, for shippers without competitive rail access--referred to as captive shippers--it is a cruel and impossible dream. I have tried for years, with partners from both sides of the aisle and all parts of the country, to change the status quo, and improve the economic situation for rail shippers and retail shoppers. This is the seventh time since 1985 I have sponsored legislation to address this issue, and the fifth congress in a row in which I have worked closely with my good friends Conrad Burns and Byron Dorgan to help shippers and their customers. And I won't give up until I actually succeed.

Predictably, the railroads will overreact to this bill with scathing accusations of what we are doing. In truth, we intend nothing more radical than helping shippers, consumers, and the railroads themselves, reap the benefits of the basic principles of capitalism--the ability of sophisticated actors to conduct arms-length negotiations for competition, service, and fair prices. Currently, Class I railroads overcharge and underserve captive shippers with impunity, and with an antitrust exemption preventing meaningful oversight by Congress. Customers have no power. This means higher prices for electricity, food, medicine, paper products; the chemicals to protect our water supply and crops, and the basic ingredients of the plastics in many of the goods we purchase. This is crucial to protecting commerce in the United States. So far, we have been thwarted, though we remain undeterred in our efforts and confident of the validity of our objectives.

In the 1970s, Congress observed a bloated freight rail network, unprofitable railroads, and service was anything but efficient and dependable. When the Staggers Act was passed in 1980, Congress gave a green light to deregulation of the railroad industry. But, as with the deregulation of every other industry that Congress has allowed, there were to be constraints on the ability of railroads to abuse shippers left captive to just one railroad. The Staggers Act left it to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to watch over a partially deregulated industry carrying out Staggers' dual goals: Improving the financial health and viability of the railroads; and improving and maintaining service for shippers. The ICC was responsible for ensuring fair treatment and reasonable rates for those shippers made captive by mergers or business decisions allowed under Staggers.

The success of Staggers has been completely one-sided. Captive rail shippers in my state of West Virginia have told me--since before I came to the United States Senate--that service was horrible and rates being charged were too high. That is still true today. When I was first running for the Senate, the country was served by about 40 ``Class I'' railroads. After Staggers the railroad industry ``rationalized'' its routes--meaning it dropped unprofitable lines and left more and more shippers captive to just one railroad.

A virtually unimpeded string of rail mergers during the last 25 years has only compounded the problem. The number of Class I railroads has dropped to seven. Four of these--CSX and Norfolk Southern in the East and Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Union Pacific in the West-- completely dominate the industry, accounting for about 90 percent of the freight rail traffic in the nation.

This is simple. Fewer market participants mean less competition, and less competition opens up the possibility of the abuse of local monopoly power. Under the misadministration of the Staggers Act, first by the ICC, and later by its successor agency the Surface Transportation Board (STB), abuse of captive shippers has not only gotten worse, but it has been unjustly bestowed a veneer of propriety by a series of unwise administrative decisions and at least one court case that gave grudging deference to an agency, the STB, that has failed to carry out the clear directions of Congress. The STB, to which shippers have looked for a solution, has become a facilitator of the problem.

The goals of the Railroad Competition Act are really quite mundane. My colleagues and I hope only to give life to a freight rail system originally envisioned by the drafters of the Staggers Act. We hope to send to the President a bill that will allow captive shippers the most basic right in business negotiations: They will be able to get the railroads that ship their products simply to quote a rate for the service.

My colleagues may be amazed to find out that the STB's current reading of the Staggers Act allows shippers no such right. Our legislation will simply require railroads to tell their customers the cost of moving a certain quantity of product from their manufacturing facility to their customer. Point A to Point B. Nothing in business is more basic, but it is a basic of business negotiations captive shippers do not currently enjoy. Additionally, our legislation also would do the following: clarifies that the STB shall promote competition among rail carriers, helping to maintain both reasonable freight rail rates and consistent and efficient rail service; creates a system of ``final offer'' arbitration for matters before the STB; authorizes the STB to remove so-called ``paper barriers'' that prevent short-line and regional railroads from providing improved service to shippers; requires STB to act in the public interest and removes required showing of railroads' anti-competitive conduct; caps filing fees for STB rate cases at the level of federal district courts (reducing filing fee from the current fee $65,000, which is to be doubled in 2005); calls for a Department of Transportation (DOT) study of rail competition; allows elected officials and state railroad regulators to petition the STB for declarations of ``areas of inadequate rail competition,'' with appropriate remedies; creates position of Rail Customer Advocate at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); and expands infrastructure modernization loan guarantee program.

In closing I would suggest that, rather than the highly charged arguments we have engaged in over the years, my colleagues encourage the railroads to take shippers' concerns seriously, and that we all work to create a freight rail marketplace made up of companies hungry, in the best capitalist sense of that word, to do business. That is the goal of the Railroad Competition Act, and I look forward to its consideration by the full Senate.