Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is intended to help the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) improve our Nation's aviation security system. All of us continue to have real concerns about our Nation's security given the threats that we face, and aviation continues to be a focus of those that want to do us harm.

I, first, want to acknowledge the work of Senators McCain and Hollings. We all have spent a lot of time thinking about the problems of our aviation system, and the threats our country faces in today's environment. Their support and thoughts have enabled all of us to put together a better piece of legislation, and we share a common goal--a better, and more secure, aviation system.

We began this process right after 9-11, but more needs to be done. Most of us understand that improvements have been made, but it has now been three years and we must complete the job. This bill, the Aviation Security Advancement Act, will move us further toward completion of this task.

When terrorists hijacked airlines and used them as weapons of mass destruction against our nation, the American people saw firsthand that we were quite vulnerable to an unseen enemy, and that our way of life was threatened in a way it had never been before. National security immediately became the primary focus of our government, and many other private entities, as everyone understood that another failure of this magnitude would be a devastating blow to the country.

In response to 9-11, Congress passed P.L. 107-71, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act or ATSA, which federalized the airport security screener workforce and required an expansive strengthening of aviation security in the U.S. As a frequent flier, I believe that the vast majority of travelers are confident in the new security regime and feel that we are much safer than we were under the system that existed before. This confidence is borne out through increasing passenger levels that are fast approaching those prior to the terror attacks in 2001. With an increased volume of passenger flow and aircraft traffic will come further challenges for aviation security. The Aviation Security Advancement Act is intended to help TSA foster a higher level of security than currently exists and focus on additional tasks that need to be addressed in this rapidly changing environment.

Yet I continue to be completely frustrated by the progress we are making with respect to screener effectiveness. Testimony before our Committee, public reports and recent editorials, all tell us that we can not rest until the effectiveness of screeners is improved. In addition, new technologies need to be deployed to help them do their jobs. We can not spend billions of dollars on a system and have it barely measure up to pre-9-11 days.

The Aviation Security Advancement Act takes needed steps to bolster aviation security and provides TSA the financial and physical support needed to close numerous loopholes in the current security regime. In response to

the increasing use of aviation by the traveling public, this legislation standardizes the Federal screener workforce and requires TSA make efforts to improve the efficiency of passenger screening to insure individuals are processed in a faster, more secure manner. To address shortcomings in cargo security, the bill would overhaul all- cargo aviation security by implementing recommendations developed by the Aviation Security Advisory Committee and by funding a new grant program to pursue technological improvements that will help secure freight on all-cargo and passenger aircraft. The bill also seeks to increase the efficiency of baggage screening by funding capital security projects at airports across the country, while providing money for the research and development of advanced screening machines, and mandating a schedule for in-line placement of Explosive Detection Systems rather than various alternative means now practiced at many airports.

In addition, the bill would mandate improvements to a number of other sectors of aviation security where I feel more needs to be done. Among these efforts would be increased support for the Federal Air Marshal program, airport perimeter security, and intelligence information sharing. It also authorizes funding for TSA to develop a biometric center of excellence to focus on definitive identification of travelers and employees which I believe could have a dramatic impact on the speed of passenger screening while providing greater security for the entire system.

It is clear that we need to take more action to improve the security of our skies. The Aviation Security Advancement Act will be a big step in the right direction. I appreciate the support of Senators McCain and Hollings and urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the bill so that we can move it through the Committee quickly.

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

Mr. President, this afternoon I will vote to adopt the pension reform legislation before the Senate. However, I do so with serious reservations. The reforms in this bill are critical for both pension security and economic growth. Congress cannot allow April 15 to pass without updating the interest rate on which pension liabilities are based. As constructive as this legislation is, it is incomplete. This bill fails to address the needs of multi-employer pension plans. I will support the pension improvements we have before us today, but I will continue to fight for similar relief for the millions of employees who were left behind in this unfortunately partisan process.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the bill before us today is critical. If the Senate fails to pass this legislation today, then next week businesses will be required to make contributions to their pension plans based on an outdated interest rate. If we require companies to make billions of dollars in overpayments to their pension plans, then we are hurting economic growth and ultimately undermining the plans. I do not want workers to lose their pension benefits, because their employers determined that they could not comply with unreasonable funding rules.

This conference report also provides much needed relief from deficit reduction contributions (DRC), especially for airlines and steel companies. The grace period provided here does not diminish employers' obligations to fully meet the promises they have made to their workers. It simply provides some needed flexibility to help companies recover from the recent economic downturn. This relief is essential for the financial stability of the steel industry and the airline industry. Protecting the pensions of those workers while ensuring that their employers have the opportunity to strengthen their businesses has been one of my main priorities since this debate began. I am very pleased that the DRC relief was included in the final legislation.

Mr. President, while there is much to support in this bill, there is also a gaping whole in the pension security we are providing to American workers. Almost 10 million workers, participants in multi- employer pension plans, were abandoned by the conference committee. Despite strong bipartisan support for multi-employer relief in the Senate, the White House insisted it be dropped from the bill. I cannot account for this insensitivity. Participants in multi-employer pension plans are typically lower wage, union workers who are employed by several small businesses over the course of their careers.

To claim that these workers do not deserve the same pension security as other workers is unconscionable.

When the Senate voted on its own version of pension relief which included multi-employer plans, it garnered 86 votes in favor. Senators were pleased to support a bill that is so important for businesses and workers all across this country. The process by which the conference committee flagrantly disregarded the interests of 86 Senators is another sad example of the partisan dysfunction that has come to characterize House-Senate conference committees. And it is a lesson that this Senator will not forget.

So, Mr. President, today I will meet my responsibilities to update the pension funding rules prior to the April 15 deadline for required pension contributions. I will gladly support the DRC relief that this legislation accords single-employer pension plans. But let my colleagues be aware, I will continue to fight to provide similar security to all of the workers who are participating in multi-employer plans. I am hopeful that in the near future Congress will live up to our obligations to those workers as well.

Mr. President, I rise for a moment to add my voice to those who praise Senator Robert C. Byrd. I think what every public servant deserves, and occasionally gets, is a recognition that his or her service is in fact profoundly appreciated. That is usually not the case. The American people are not as aware of what goes on in these Halls, or even in their own legislative halls, as they ought to be.

But I take special happiness out of this day for Senator Byrd because he has accomplished something that nobody else has with his 17,000th vote. He rose to cast his vote, as he always does. When somebody comes to greet him, argue with him, plead with him, and he is at his seat, he always rises, be that a man or a woman. He has brought, in my judgment, not only a tautness to the debates that we have in this Chamber, not always agreeing with the majority or with the minority, but he knows his mind and he knows his soul, and he knows his God. He does not deviate from that and he cares not who appreciates that or who doesn't.

In other words, Senator Byrd is a man who, over the years, through the crucible of tough experiences and steadfast devotion not only to his God but also to the great figure who is not here today, who is so much part of his life and who brings out even in saying her name a great emotion in me, and that is his absolutely wonderful, wonderful wife Erma, honors us by his service.

I was with him earlier this morning as he was talking to schoolteachers from all over the United States who are trying to get their students to write better. It is called the ``writers project,'' which he has been instrumental in doing. He talked to them of public service and the need for accuracy and being fair. What he was really saying is that doing something in your life which is not only important but which you give yourself to profoundly, completely, an utter devotion to duty, is what separates the great and the near great.

I am very proud to serve with Senator Byrd. We have served together for 20 years now and have known each other for close to 40 years. Our wives are good friends; we are good friends. I sit behind him in the seat that Senator Moynihan used to occupy. I enjoy seeing people coming up to him and making their case, which talks not only of his courtesy, because he is so often on the floor, but also of his power to get things done, which then makes me say that there is no possible way to describe, from the point of view of the Senators in my State of West Virginia, what he has meant, does mean, and will mean for that State.

West Virginia is a State that has always had to struggle. We have always had to keep pushing the rock uphill, not daring to take one hand off for fear that the rock may roll back over the top of us. It takes a tough person and a moral person and a determined person to fight the battles that are needed to be won for our people in West Virginia. That comes to Senator Byrd instinctively.

I am so proud of this day because I cannot help but feel that when Senator Byrd goes to bed tonight, he will have a strong and profound sense of satisfaction--not that he needs to feel that, but that will make me feel better if he does feel that, because he serves our State and our Nation as few people have in the history of our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished ranking member from Montana, Mr. Baucus, in introducing the Medicaid and CHIP Safety Net Preservation Act of 2004. Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provide health insurance coverage to more than 50 million vulnerable Americans, including pregnant women, kids, people with disabilities, and seniors in nursing homes. Preserving the integrity of each of these programs should be one of our top priorities. The bill that we are introducing today would ensure that Section 1115 of the Social Security Act--the so-called ``1115 waiver authority''--does not erode the core objectives of Medicaid and CHIP.

Medicaid and CHIP form the foundation of our Nation's health care safety net. Without them, many more Americans would be uninsured. Unfortunately, the central objectives of these entitlement programs have been threatened in recent years by short-sighted proposals to cap Federal funding, questionable administrative rules and regulations, and inappropriate waivers that essentially waive the requirements of Federal law. The Medicaid and CHIP Safety Net Preservation Act would address each of these issues by reaffirming the core requirements of Medicaid and SCHIP.

Congress created Medicaid in 1965 as Federal-State partnership to provide health insurance coverage to low-income families on welfare. Over the years, Medicaid has evolved into a multi-faceted health insurance program that serves working families, the disabled, and the elderly. Throughout the evolution of Medicaid, two aspects of the program have remained the same: Federal guidelines for program administration and shared Federal and State responsibility for financing. This structure has served the Medicaid program well. It maintains the national health care safety net, while also allowing Federal and State policymakers to tailor the program to meet local needs.

In 1997, I was joined by Senator Chafee in introducing the Children's Health Insurance Program as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The purpose of this program has always been to help the children of families that do not qualify for Medicaid. At the time that CHIP was enacted, 10 million children were uninsured. Today, over 5 million children have coverage through CHIP; this includes nearly 23,000 children in the State of West Virginia. While we still have a long way to go in order to provide every child with health insurance, I believe the families touched by the CHIP program thus far would agree it serves its purpose well.

The legislation that Senator Baucus and I are introducing today is designed to make it very clear that certain requirements under Medicaid and CHIP are central to the overall objectives of these programs and are not subject to waiver. Specifically, this legislation would ensure that 1115 waivers are not used to impose global caps on Federal payments to Medicaid. It would protect the Federal guarantee of Medicaid for any eligible individual. Children would continue to have access to comprehensive health benefits under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Money intended for the care of children under CHIP would be used for that purpose. Finally, the process for reviewing and approving 1115 waivers would be more transparent, allowing greater opportunities for public notice and comment.

The Medicaid and CHIP Safety Net Preservation Act is a good first step toward preserving these critical health insurance programs. However, in order to strengthen Medicaid and CHIP for the future, we must also enact legislation that gives States the resources they need to cover eligible Medicaid beneficiaries, restores funding for the CHIP program, and allows states greater flexibility within the guidelines of the law. I urge my colleagues to support all of these important measures.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today designed to enhance child well-being in every State by collecting data on a State-by-State basis to provide information to advocates and policy makers about the well-being of children. My hope is that this legislation could be incorporated into a welfare reform reauthorization package. I believe that the Senate should reauthorize our welfare program, known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and we should do it soon. But when we reauthorize TANF we must significantly invest in child care which is essential for parents to move from welfare to work, and to be successful on the job once they leave the official welfare rolls.

In 1996 this body took a bold step forward in reforming welfare. The driving force behind this reform was to promote work and self- sufficiency for families and to provide flexibility to States to achieve these goals.

States have used this flexibility to design different programs that work better for families who rely on them. Because of vast variation among State programs, there is an obvious need for research on child well-being for each State. We currently use the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to evaluate the progress of welfare. It is an important national longitudinal study designed to provide rich, detailed data; the kinds of data most useful to academic researchers. It does not, however, provide States with good, timely data to help them more effectively accomplish the goals set forth in welfare reform.

This bill, the State Child Well Being Research Act of 2004, is intended to fill this information gap by collecting timely, State- specific data that can be used by policy-makers, researchers, and child advocates to assess the well being of children. It would require that a survey examine the physical and emotional health of children, adequately represent the experiences of families in individual States, be consistent across States, be collected annually, articulate results in easy to understand terms, and focus on low-income children and families.

The proposed legislation will provide data for all States, including small rural States like West Virginia. Further, this bill avoids some of the other problems that plague the current system by making data files easier to use and more readily available. As a result, the information will be more useful for policy-makers managing welfare reform and programs for children and families. When we reauthorize welfare reform, it will be essential for us to make a modest investment in research for every State.

Several private charitable foundations, including the Annie E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, and McKnight foundations have written Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus in support of such research. These foundations have offered to form a partnership to provide outreach and support and to guarantee that the data

collected would be broadly disseminated. This type of public-private partnership helps to leverage additional resources for children and families and increases the study's impact.

One of the most important ways that Congress can demonstrate its commitment to welfare reform and attempt to help States reach the goals outlined in 1996 is to incorporate a strong research component in the welfare reform reauthorization bill. Since each State has used its flexibility to creative innovative welfare reform programs, and many are quite different, we need State-by-State data on basic aspects of child well-being. I hope that my colleagues will support this bill so that we can give States the information they need to monitor and improve child well-being.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today designed to enhance child well-being in every State by collecting data on a State-by-State basis to provide information to advocates and policy makers about the well-being of children. My hope is that this legislation could be incorporated into a welfare reform reauthorization package. I believe that the Senate should reauthorize our welfare program, known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and we should do it soon. But when we reauthorize TANF we must significantly invest in child care which is essential for parents to move from welfare to work, and to be successful on the job once they leave the official welfare rolls.

In 1996 this body took a bold step forward in reforming welfare. The driving force behind this reform was to promote work and self- sufficiency for families and to provide flexibility to States to achieve these goals.

States have used this flexibility to design different programs that work better for families who rely on them. Because of vast variation among State programs, there is an obvious need for research on child well-being for each State. We currently use the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to evaluate the progress of welfare. It is an important national longitudinal study designed to provide rich, detailed data; the kinds of data most useful to academic researchers. It does not, however, provide States with good, timely data to help them more effectively accomplish the goals set forth in welfare reform.

This bill, the State Child Well Being Research Act of 2004, is intended to fill this information gap by collecting timely, State- specific data that can be used by policy-makers, researchers, and child advocates to assess the well being of children. It would require that a survey examine the physical and emotional health of children, adequately represent the experiences of families in individual States, be consistent across States, be collected annually, articulate results in easy to understand terms, and focus on low-income children and families.

The proposed legislation will provide data for all States, including small rural States like West Virginia. Further, this bill avoids some of the other problems that plague the current system by making data files easier to use and more readily available. As a result, the information will be more useful for policy-makers managing welfare reform and programs for children and families. When we reauthorize welfare reform, it will be essential for us to make a modest investment in research for every State.

Several private charitable foundations, including the Annie E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, and McKnight foundations have written Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus in support of such research. These foundations have offered to form a partnership to provide outreach and support and to guarantee that the data

collected would be broadly disseminated. This type of public-private partnership helps to leverage additional resources for children and families and increases the study's impact.

One of the most important ways that Congress can demonstrate its commitment to welfare reform and attempt to help States reach the goals outlined in 1996 is to incorporate a strong research component in the welfare reform reauthorization bill. Since each State has used its flexibility to creative innovative welfare reform programs, and many are quite different, we need State-by-State data on basic aspects of child well-being. I hope that my colleagues will support this bill so that we can give States the information they need to monitor and improve child well-being.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from California. I urge all Senators to side with working Americans and vote for this amendment.

There has been considerable media attention recently to the dire employment situation in America, but this problem is so acute that I think it bears repeating. Eight million Americans are currently looking for work. Of these, nearly 2 million workers have already been unemployed for more than 6 months.

The Labor Department told us last week that almost 400,000 Americans are not even counted by the unemployment statistics because they have simply given up and left the workforce. In the last 3 years, the Nation has lost 2.5 million jobs--2.5 million.

This situation demands a response from the Nation's leaders that will actually help create jobs. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is failing this test. Instead of appreciating the crisis facing those who have lost their jobs, this administration presses ahead with failed economic policies.

The President continues to call for additional tax cuts tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. He opposes extending unemployment benefits to help families weather the difficult economy. And recently, his administration actually endorsed the shipment of jobs overseas. The budget resolution before us today makes the mistake of affirming the President's failed policies.

The amendment offered by Senator Boxer offers a starkly different direction. Her amendment includes a series of provisions that will respond to the employment crisis facing America by helping American companies stay here and add jobs.

First, this amendment creates a temporary tax break for businesses that create jobs. In order to help employers feel more confident in adding new workers to their payroll, this amendment would reduce the cost of hiring during this uncertain time.

In addition, the amendment would require the Federal Government, whenever possible, to hire American workers when spending taxpayers dollars. This is the least that we owe workers who are struggling to pay their taxes as they worry that their jobs will be shipped overseas.

The amendment also ensures that our Tax Code does not provide incentives for companies to move their factories to other countries. American businesses should not be allowed to avoid taxation on income from production that it moves overseas only to ship the goods back to the U.S. The amendment before us would eliminate this perverse incentive in our Tax Code.

In cases where corporate executives have determined that it is in the best interests of their companies to ship jobs overseas, this amendment requires that the companies show some respect for their workers and communities by providing sufficient notice before pulling up their stakes.

The amendment also calls for increased investment in programs that we know help our small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies benefit from new science and technological developments. Both the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program help our manufacturing companies globally. This amendment calls for adequate funding for these important programs.

These are just a few of the important provisions of this amendment. The message that this amendment sends is very simple: Congress understands that Americans need good jobs and we are prepared to support policies that will help create and maintain these jobs.

In my own State of West Virginia, hard-working people expect Congress to understand how devastating it is when factories close their doors and ship the jobs overseas. Since President Bush came to office, West Virginia has lost nearly 10,000 good manufacturing jobs.

Manufacturing jobs have traditionally provided a path to the middle class. They offer good wages, health care benefits, and pension plans. Having worked for years to bring new jobs to my State, I know how important it is to have public policies that will support job creation and protect American workers. That is what this amendment would do, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Five or six minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the extremely distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Conrad, and Senator Nickles.

Last year we had a very interesting scene on this floor in which 75 Senators, working with Senator Collins, Senator Nelson from Nebraska, and Senator Smith from Oregon and I, and others, passed a $20 billion fiscal relief bill for the States. Half of that was devoted to Medicaid. It became an extraordinarily important part of what States did to be able to survive.

We are once again in a dire fiscal situation. States face the prospect of having to cut benefits to kids, particularly poor kids, needy families, and seniors in nursing homes, something which 75 Senators voted not to do last year. It passed the House. The President signed it.

Forty-two States last year were in a budget deficit situation with respect to Medicaid. It was and is their largest problem. Sluggish job growth continues to add to that problem. Last month our economy gained 21,000 new jobs. There are 8 million people out of work, so that is only one job for every 380 unemployed workers. The majority of Americans get their health care through their job, particularly manufacturing jobs, so employment is tremendously important. Manufacturing has been going down, as the Presiding Officer knows.

Even more depressing, about 400,000 Americans have dropped out of the workforce altogether, which to me is the saddest thing that can happen, where people just kind of give up. The Presiding Officer and I have seen that in our States and across America.

But instead of working to further ease the budgetary strain on States, Congress has actually made life tougher for States fiscally. The new Medicare law includes at least $1.2 billion in net costs to States in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006. We should be providing States the resources they need to work with Medicare, not enacting legislation that assumes cuts.

My amendment, which I will not offer formally, would allow Congress to enact legislation simply to extend the enhanced Medicaid match we passed last year beyond June 30 of this year. It is not a prescriptive policy, but rather a placeholder that will allow us to help an awful lot of people down the road.

Some in this body will argue we did this just to be temporary. The economic situation has not stabilized. To the extent we can say the problem is there and there is something we can do to help States, it will make an enormous difference to lots of people. It is interesting and sad that 30 States are projecting budget deficits for the fiscal year coming up. Estimates indicate those deficits could total as much as $41 billion. In eight States--and I won't name them--the budget shortfalls are so large for Medicaid that they exceed 10 percent of the entire budget of the State.

I put this concept, which I believe is tremendously important, before the Senate. It simply allows fiscal relief beyond June 30. It allows an extension of what we passed by an enormous amount last year. I hope my colleagues will look upon it favorably.

Of course.

The Senator from Massachusetts is precisely correct. The fact is there is not a nickel's increase from what it was we passed so unanimously a year ago, not a nickel's increase.

I thank the Senator and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the budget resolution that the Senate is considering today. Quite simply, this resolution does not reflect the priorities of West Virginians. The policies promoted here would not be in the best interests of the overwhelming majority of West Virginians.

This budget resolution calls for more of the same failed economic policies that have been implemented over the last 3 years. It provides for additional tax cuts for the wealthy. It short-changes investment in important domestic programs. It understates the cost of supporting our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it forecasts more outrageous deficits for our children to pay off.

West Virginians are rightfully worried about our economy right now. Many of them are unemployed, and many others are nervous that their jobs will be the next ones shipped overseas. They are having trouble making ends meet on wages that have stagnated. They are struggling to have health care for themselves and their families. They have a right to expect that when laying out our economic policy for the coming year, Congress will address these pressing concerns. I am very disappointed that the budget resolution we are considering today offers no leadership on these important issues.

Instead, as has been the pattern of the last 3 years, this budget resolution provides for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Let me be clear. Some of the tax cuts called for in this budget resolution are ones that I look forward to supporting. The increase in the child tax credit, relief from the marriage penalty, expansion of the lowest tax bracket--these are tax cuts for hard-working Americans that Democrats have been fighting for all along. Families in West Virginia deserve to have these tax cuts extended, and I will work with my colleagues to ensure that we do so.

However, this budget resolution calls for additional tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans as well. The legislation asks us to accelerate the elimination of estate tax--something that helps married couples with estates worth more than $7 million. The resolution asks us to extend the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains income--something that will benefit less than 20 percent of the people in my state. I simply do not believe that Congress ought to consider additional tax cuts for the most fortunate in our society in a year when our troops are in the fields, millions of Americans are feeling the pain of joblessness, and the government is running record deficits. To those who hid behind the spurious argument that tax cuts for the wealthy are really for small businesses, I would remind them that less than 2 percent of our Nation's small businesses pay taxes in the highest bracket.

With tax revenues already at their lowest point in decades, as a share of the economy, critical Government services are underfunded in this budget resolution. The resolution provides just $369 billion for all domestic, discretionary spending outside of homeland security. While that may sound like a great deal of money, it is just $2 billion more than last year, and certainly not enough to keep pace with inflation or program growth.

Let me give you just a few examples of the painful results of such a budget. First, this budget turns its back on our schools and reneges on a promise Congress made when it enacted the No Child Left Behind legislation. In 2000, I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act because I strongly believe that education is the key to our future and we must invest in higher academic standards. Based on that legislation, our schools have accepted annual testing, and its expense, higher academic standards for students, and higher standards for teachers. But this budget does not follow through with the resources we promised schools that accepted these changes. This year alone, we are $8.6 billion short of promised funding. In West Virginia, funding is $60 million less than promised.

Students are not the only ones to lose out under this budget resolution. Anthony Principi, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, told Congress that Veterans Administration health care is underfunded. He testified that he needed $1.2 billion in additional funds. At a time when military personnel are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, new veterans are coming home, and 60,000 veterans are on waiting lists for health care, we simply must fund VA health care. Yet, this budget does not.

The Federal Government also has a responsibility to maintain its commitment to Medicaid in order to protect access to health care for our poor children, needy families and seniors in nursing homes. This is especially true during times of economic downturn when Medicaid beneficiaries need it the most. Last year, I worked with several of my colleagues in the House and Senate to successfully pass $20 billion in State fiscal relief. This legislation prevented several States from making cuts to their Medicaid programs. However, the projected budget deficits for states in the coming year are between $39-$41 billion--in spite of the slight upturn in the economy. Eighteen States have already introduced measures to reduce Medicaid coverage, eliminate benefits, increase copays, limit access to prescription drugs, or decrease payments to providers. Additional states will be forced to enact similar measures if fiscal relief expires on June 30.

Instead of trying to undermine Medicaid funding, we should continue to provide state fiscal relief in order to hasten our nation's economic recovery and improve coverage options for the uninsured. And I am very disappointed that this budget resolution offers no assistance to states to prevent these devastating cuts.

As the ranking Democrat on the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, I cannot help but note that this resolution does not provide sufficient funds for the Essential Air Service program or the Small Community Air Service Development Program. I will certainly fight for adequate funding to maintain the Federal Government's commitment to making sure that small and rural communities continue to be connected to the national air transportation system. This

budget resolution will make that fight an uphill battle.

I cannot support this budget. I refuse to believe that this is the best that Congress can do, and I will not try to explain to West Virginians that there is room for additional tax cuts, but not enough money for education, child care, health care, infrastructure improvements, homeland security, and other important domestic initiatives.

I also refuse to ask West Virginia's children to assume enormous amounts of additional debt to fund such misguided priorities. Make no mistake, while this budget imposes painful restrictions on services that West Virginians care about, it still increases our national debt by unprecedented amounts in the coming years. These outrageous deficits will have a tangible, negative impact for middle-class Americans. As Government borrowing goes up, we know that interest rates will also arise for families with home mortgages, student loans, car loans, or credit card debt.

If this resolution is to be the blueprint for our economic policy this year, then we are in for another dismal year. I ask my colleagues to oppose this budget resolution and to work together to craft a budget that is consistent with the values of hard working American families.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation introduced today that will reinstate a moratorium on State and local taxation of access to the Internet. Senators Alexander and Carper have worked very hard to craft legislation that will protect Americans from being taxed for using the Internet, while still respecting the States' need to raise revenue from traditional telecommunications taxes. As a fellow former Governor, I have been pleased to join them in this effort and hope that all of my colleagues who have supported a moratorium on taxation of Internet access will support this bill.

Until last fall, there was a moratorium in place prohibiting taxation of Internet access. Unfortunately, that lapsed before Congress was able to craft an extension. One of the reasons that extending the moratorium has been difficult is that we want to apply the lessons learned over the last few years. For example, the previous moratorium was not technology-neutral. That is, people who accessed the Internet using a DSL connection were not always treated the same as those who used dial- up service or a cable modem. This was clearly an unintended consequence of the way that the previous legislation was drafted. In addition, over the last few years, we have seen many States struggle with enormous budget deficits. Recognizing that a downturn in the economy can compromise a state's ability to provide vital services, including schools, firefighters, and police officers, we do not want to undermine any state's revenue base.

With these lessons in mind, Senators Alexander, Carper and others have crafted an extension of the previous moratorium that would ensure that no States impose new taxes on Internet access. The legislation specifically requires that all technologies be treated equally. And because the moratorium is limited to 2 years, it ensures that Congress will revisit the issue periodically as technologies develop and circumstances change.

As a former Governor, I do not take lightly any Federal action that limits the options available to local and State elected officials I recognize how hard it is to balance a State budget and am only willing to support a moratorium on Internet access taxes because I believe that we are dealing with a unique new service. The Internet has the power to connect Americans as the radio, telephone, and television did for previous generations. By sending e-mails, telecommuting, or banking online, Americans are communicating in a new way that makes our economy more productive and enhances our quality of life. If sparing Internet access from taxation increasing the ability of low and moderate income Americans to join the technology revolution, then it is certainly a worthy public policy goal.

Now, Senators Allen and Wyden have offered an alternative approach. They have proposed legislation that would permanently bar States ad cities from taxing Internet access, and they have defined the service broadly that many experts believe it will undermine some telecommunications taxes on which States currently depend. I am not interested in providing enormous tax breaks to the telecommunications industry, and so I oppose their approach. Taxes that businesses currently pay to access the Internet backbone are reasonable costs of doing business. I hope that my colleagues will not be intimidated by claims that those of us who oppose tax breaks for telecommuncations companies actually want to tax people's e-mails. That is a false argument, and anyone who resorts to it is surely trying to avoid the difficult issues that are addressed by the bill introduced today by Senators Alexander and Carper.

I would like to make one final point to my colleagues, and that is about fallibility. Every day we get fresh evidence that things are not always as they seemed and that we do not, in fact, know everything we thought we knew. If fallibility is part of being human, then surely it is part of any legislative body. If the moratorium that Congress had imposed 5 years ago had been permanent, then we would have had a difficult time reopening the issue to address the fact that certain technologies were not protected under the act. We ought not make that mistake now by thinking that we can accurately foresee the exciting technological developments on the horizon. It is appropriate for Congress to revisit this issue in two years, as the Alexander-Carper proposal allows.

I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in support of a new temporary moratorium on Internet access taxes. Enacting this legislation quickly will ensure that Americans are not hit with any taxes when they try to log on.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation introduced today that will reinstate a moratorium on State and local taxation of access to the Internet. Senators Alexander and Carper have worked very hard to craft legislation that will protect Americans from being taxed for using the Internet, while still respecting the States' need to raise revenue from traditional telecommunications taxes. As a fellow former Governor, I have been pleased to join them in this effort and hope that all of my colleagues who have supported a moratorium on taxation of Internet access will support this bill.

Until last fall, there was a moratorium in place prohibiting taxation of Internet access. Unfortunately, that lapsed before Congress was able to craft an extension. One of the reasons that extending the moratorium has been difficult is that we want to apply the lessons learned over the last few years. For example, the previous moratorium was not technology-neutral. That is, people who accessed the Internet using a DSL connection were not always treated the same as those who used dial- up service or a cable modem. This was clearly an unintended consequence of the way that the previous legislation was drafted. In addition, over the last few years, we have seen many States struggle with enormous budget deficits. Recognizing that a downturn in the economy can compromise a state's ability to provide vital services, including schools, firefighters, and police officers, we do not want to undermine any state's revenue base.

With these lessons in mind, Senators Alexander, Carper and others have crafted an extension of the previous moratorium that would ensure that no States impose new taxes on Internet access. The legislation specifically requires that all technologies be treated equally. And because the moratorium is limited to 2 years, it ensures that Congress will revisit the issue periodically as technologies develop and circumstances change.

As a former Governor, I do not take lightly any Federal action that limits the options available to local and State elected officials I recognize how hard it is to balance a State budget and am only willing to support a moratorium on Internet access taxes because I believe that we are dealing with a unique new service. The Internet has the power to connect Americans as the radio, telephone, and television did for previous generations. By sending e-mails, telecommuting, or banking online, Americans are communicating in a new way that makes our economy more productive and enhances our quality of life. If sparing Internet access from taxation increasing the ability of low and moderate income Americans to join the technology revolution, then it is certainly a worthy public policy goal.

Now, Senators Allen and Wyden have offered an alternative approach. They have proposed legislation that would permanently bar States ad cities from taxing Internet access, and they have defined the service broadly that many experts believe it will undermine some telecommunications taxes on which States currently depend. I am not interested in providing enormous tax breaks to the telecommunications industry, and so I oppose their approach. Taxes that businesses currently pay to access the Internet backbone are reasonable costs of doing business. I hope that my colleagues will not be intimidated by claims that those of us who oppose tax breaks for telecommuncations companies actually want to tax people's e-mails. That is a false argument, and anyone who resorts to it is surely trying to avoid the difficult issues that are addressed by the bill introduced today by Senators Alexander and Carper.

I would like to make one final point to my colleagues, and that is about fallibility. Every day we get fresh evidence that things are not always as they seemed and that we do not, in fact, know everything we thought we knew. If fallibility is part of being human, then surely it is part of any legislative body. If the moratorium that Congress had imposed 5 years ago had been permanent, then we would have had a difficult time reopening the issue to address the fact that certain technologies were not protected under the act. We ought not make that mistake now by thinking that we can accurately foresee the exciting technological developments on the horizon. It is appropriate for Congress to revisit this issue in two years, as the Alexander-Carper proposal allows.

I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in support of a new temporary moratorium on Internet access taxes. Enacting this legislation quickly will ensure that Americans are not hit with any taxes when they try to log on.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senators Cantwell and Kennedy's amendment to reinstate and extend the Federal unemployment insurance program. This measure would provide 6 additional months of financial assistance to thousands of West Virginians and millions of Americans who have exhausted their regular state-funded benefits. This support is desperately needed and deserves immediate attention.

The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program expired on December 31, 2003. In response to a slowdown in the American economy, Congress created this program in March 2002 to provide federally-funded unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed who want to work, and who are looking for work, but are unable to find employment in the current economic climate. As all of my colleagues are aware, Congress extended the program twice, in January and May of 2003 respectively, because jobs remained scarce and new ones were not being created. Now, with millions of our constituents still looking for work and with 90,000 workers exhausting their State-funded benefits each week millions of Americans need our help once again.

Over the past two years our economy has suffered through a difficult recession. Recently, however, according to some economic indicators, it does appear to be turning the corner. At least the data indicates we are poised to return to better and improved economic output from years past. This is some encouraging news, but it is long overdue. Despite strong economic growth over the last two quarters of 2003 and a surge in the financial markets, jobs continue to be hard to find. At this time, there is merely one job opening for every three out of work Americans. This is totally unacceptable. We cannot merely continue to muddle through a ``jobless recovery''--we must get the unemployed the relief they need.

Those who oppose extending emergency unemployment insurance have also argued that recent improvements in the economy and the labor market demonstrate that the program is no longer needed. How can the administration tout upward trends as a major economic turnaround when so many Americans are still struggling so hard just to make ends meet? The White House claims that jobs are one of the administration's primary concerns. Yet, I am troubled that the White House has been conspicuously silent about unemployment insurance, which has been proven to boost economic output. It has been reported that continuing the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program would be the single best mechanism to boost the economy, giving the economy a $1.73 jolt for each $1 of Federal benefits. Unemployment insurance benefits are excellent stimulus because they aid people who are likely to spend additional resources immediately.

Opponents to the extension cite a drop in the national unemployment rate, among other improvements in the economy, to justify phasing out this program that serves as the final safety net for workers across the country. It is true that the Nation's unemployment rate has dropped, albeit minimally, over the past few months. But it is clear that these numbers are misleading. A closer look at the numbers reveals that thousands of Americans are so frustrated they actually gave up looking for work altogether and dropped out of the labor market. Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work and the number of long-term unemployed remains enormously high, at almost 2 million. Constituents in my home State of West Virginia have been particularly vocal about the seriousness of this situation. In January, nearly 1,200 West Virginians exhausted their State-funded benefits. That number will jump to nearly 7,000 over the next 6 months. If we pass this amendment, more than 8,000 of my constituents would get the help they need and deserve.

My offices are taking calls from West Virginians who need such help. One example is a woman who lost her job due to company layoffs. She decided to return to school so that she could learn new skills and reenter the workforce better prepared for an uncertain future. My constituent was depending on the TUEC benefit to help finance her education. Without extending these benefits, how will she make ends meet until she finishes her training? I believe that it's a matter of this administration's priorities. And I very much worry we do not have our priorities straight.

Lack of jobs is the primary culprit. But what is equally troubling is that there is a clear shift of jobs from high-paying industries to lower-paying sectors. This fundamental change in the job market was precipitated by a variety of factors. But simply replacing a good, secure, and well-paying position that includes health insurance and pension benefits with a minimum wage job just doesn't cut it. And sadly, it appears as if this administration is content to tout the creation of new low-paying jobs as stimulus, comparable to the 2.6 million manufacturing jobs that were lost since this President took office. West Virginia alone has lost about 9,800 manufacturing jobs over the last few years.

Congress must recognize the urgency of this problem. We must move quickly to reinstate this program, not only to assist the unemployed, but also because in doing so we will provide our home states with additional resources that will immediately infuse economies across the country with more spending power.

We can afford to help our fellow Americans. Every worker contributes

to the Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds so that in times of need benefits are available. Failure to act would send a very negative message to the large number of Americans struggling to make their way in this difficult job climate. Not extending benefits is harsh on the unemployed and their families.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has just passed the Pension Stability Act by an overwhelming margin. I spoke yesterday on behalf of the legislation, because I understand how important these changes are to the employers who offer defined benefit pension plans and to the employees who are counting on those pension benefits. I would like to just add a few words today to encourage the House of Representatives to quickly approve the bill, as amended by the Senate, and get this legislation to President Bush at the earliest possible date.

The pension reforms provided in this bill are urgently needed. Many large companies have contacted me to stress how important it is that Congress act to update the interest rate used in calculating pension liabilities. Continuing to require employers to use the outdated 30- year Treasury rate would jeopardize pension plans for millions of workers. I have also met with several executives from our Nation's airlines. The temporary relief from deficit reduction contributions provided by this bill is critically important to our struggling airline industry.

As a result of both September 11 and the slow economy during the last few years, our Nation's airlines have dealt with extremely difficult business conditions. The industry has already laid off more than 200,000 people, and many airlines are struggling either to emerge from bankruptcy or to avoid having to file for bankruptcy. By providing airlines some breathing room when it comes to pension payments, we can protect workers' benefits that might otherwise be cancelled and protect workers' jobs that might otherwise be cut. Ultimately, this bill is an effort to do what we can to take care of workers who have already seen involuntary furloughs, seen their wages reduced, and seen their pensions cut. In my judgment, preserving the benefits and rights of workers who make our industries strong is crucial to strengthening our economy.

This bill will help employers to honor their commitments to their employees, many of whom have already sacrificed so much for their companies. I am very pleased that by a vote of 86 to 9, my Senate colleagues approved this bill. I hope that the House will listen to the clear message that we sent today. For the sake of employers and their employees, Congress and the President must enact these pension reforms now.

(At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, the Senator from Montana is otherwise occupied for the moment, so we are going to turn our attention, through myself and Senator Kyl, to the legislation we are considering, which is critically important and which has to do with pension plans and offering predictable solutions.

There are many people who I would like to thank, but I will not do that because I only have 7\1/2\ minutes.

The legislation we are considering enacts critical reforms that will shore up defined benefit pension plans upon which so many Americans depend. Today, we are updating the interest rate that companies must use when they calculate the liabilities of their pension plans. An index of long-term corporate bond rates is surely more accurate as a measurement of expected investment return than the now entirely defunct 30-year Treasury rate.

This bill also provides a grace period for pension plans, including multiemployer plans, which have experienced extraordinary losses in the recent stock market declines. Make no mistake, if companies are not accorded reasonable flexibility in funding their plans, then they will not be able to maintain or afford plans for their workers, and their workers will hurt. I know of that because I live in a State where that surrounds me.

I hope today's action is only the first step in a thoughtful and careful process to provide meaningful reforms for the defined benefit pension plan system. Congress ought to do all it can to encourage employers to provide retirement security through such plans.

Today, only 35,000 companies provide defined benefit pension plans, which is less than a quarter of the plans available 20 years ago. That is a big loss. Given the volatility we have seen in the stock market over the last few years, more employees would benefit from having the opportunity to earn secure, predictable pension benefits.

I stand ready to work with my colleagues to address the other important issues facing companies that are interested in providing defined benefit pension plans. For example, Congress ought to reconsider the funding rules to ensure that companies are able to invest appropriately in their pension plans when business is good and profits are strong. We also need to consider ways to strengthen the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation which, to say the very least, is stretched dangerously thin.

I hope my colleagues will work with me on important reforms such as these so we can improve retirement security for millions of Americans. As I ask my colleagues to do exactly that, I remind them of the people who are dependent upon us. I have met with many West Virginians who have worked hard all of their lives--as they say, played by the rules-- and earned pension benefits from their employers, only to have the rug pulled out from under them in retirement. It is a painful, painful sight.

Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel, Weirton Steel, Kaiser Aluminum, and Special Metals--and I am talking about companies in West Virginia--have been taken over by the PBGC in recent years. Retirees who dedicated their working years to those companies have told me how scared they are. Many have also lost their health insurance. Without their full pension benefits, they have no way to provide for their health care needs.

Some people--and I am talking about seniors who are 60 or 65 years old--have told me they are looking for work. Part of their so-called retirement will be spent on the job because the pension benefits they were promised--the benefits they did earn--have been taken away.

The legislation we are considering today will not solve all problems. More comprehensive pension reform is needed. But I am pleased this bill will help companies maintain pension plans that otherwise might have been canceled.

Amendment No. 2234

I would also like to take a moment to address the amendment that has been offered by my colleague from Arizona. On behalf of the steelworkers of my State and the steelworkers of the State of the Presiding Officer, and on behalf of steelworkers across this country and many other hundreds of thousands of working people, I want to oppose the amendment that the Senator has offered.

The legislation that Congress is considering today is designed to help companies maintain critical pensions on which workers are depending. We are doing so to protect workers from losing benefits that they have been promised. We understand some companies, faced with particularly hard times, are unable to immediately make up the investment losses recently suffered by pension plans. If companies cannot afford to meet strict deficit reduction contribution requirements, they might be compelled to abandon pension plans and leave workers without secure retirement benefits.

Having said this, the Kyl amendment would dramatically decrease the security of hard-earned retirement benefits. The amendment fundamentally undermines the guarantee provided by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation which insures the defined benefit retirement plans. Let me be very clear about that because the PBGC is, unfortunately, something that we know a great deal about in the part of the country I come from. I repeat, the Senator's amendment would dramatically decrease the security of hard-earned retirement benefits. It undermines the guaranteed portion of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. If Congress is going to change the guarantee provided by the PBGC, we must look for ways to improve the guaranteed benefit, not undermine it.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans currently depend on PBGC for their retirement security. These are people who toiled away for years, often in very dangerous occupations, in all kinds of them. It is absolutely essential that we do not erode the already inadequate guarantee that protects these workers in their old age. Retirees depend upon PBGC payments to pay for food, housing, and, increasingly, to cover health care costs when retiree health benefits have been reduced or eliminated, as is so often the case. It would be unconscionable for Congress to provide relief to cash-strapped companies to help them maintain the pension plans they offer, only to punish the employees of those companies by

denying them the benefits they have earned.

I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for workers and defeat this amendment.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I voted against cloture and against the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus appropriations conference report because it does not fund West Virginia's priorities--short changing veteran's healthcare by about $700 million and education by $6 billion, as well as many other essential programs. I was also very concerned that provisions were added to the legislation at the insistence of the White House and over the will of both Houses of Congress to cut overtime pay for 8 million workers. Not long ago, the Senate and the House rejected this administration's Department of Labor regulation that would reduce the overtime pay of workers, and yet this bill includes just such a change.

The process that produced this bill was unfair and does not give Congress its due opportunity to protect the priorities of the citizens of our states. This kind of process means West Virginia loses its right to be properly represented.

Additionally, the will of Congress to implement stronger food safety provisions to require country-of-origin labeling for meat products has been ignored. This legislation delays action on such labeling for another two years; a troubling result given the concerns about mad cow disease.

In previous action, the House and Senate conferees agreed to provide basic protections for Federal employees targeted for privatization by the administration, yet this legislation guts such protection placing 400,000 Federal workers in jeopardy without protections.

What's more, this legislation included an across-the-board cut in all programs, and that is not a responsible budget practice. Such a cut means that 24,000 fewer children will be served by title I in their schools, 26,500 fewer veterans will get health care, and $170 million will be lost for needed highway construction.

Under the process imposed in this must pass legislation, Senators have no chance to offer amendments or make changes. This is simply not right, and therefore, I vote no in protest. I vote no, to taking away the rights of West Virginians.

I understand that the votes are there to pass the underlying legislation to keep the government functioning and provide support to West Virginia projects. I agree that VA healthcare funding needs to be increased, but this bill falls far short. I agree with the $1 billion increase for the Title 1 education program, but I also must point out that we are still $6 billion short of the amount promised for the No Child Left Behind Act.

Again, my vote is a protest vote against the effort to rob West Virginia of its representation in the appropriations process and in opposition to the egregious provisions inserted into this legislation without bipartisan support, or full and fair discussion. I am pleased that after over 4 months, Federal funding is decided, but the process must be changed.

Mr. President, this past Friday I voted against the Energy bill conference report that was before the Senate. I did this despite having worked for many years on some of the bill's components that I believe will be good for West Virginia and the Nation, such as tax incentives and related research and development of clean coal technologies, incentives to increase domestic energy production through an expansion of existing credits for production from non-conventional sources, and incentives to promote greater use of alternative fuel vehicles. However, presented with the complete package under consideration, I had no qualms about voting to continue debate and to stop a vote on final passage.

As a Senator from a State where coal is not merely a home state industry, but a part of the spirit of the place, I did not come to this conclusion easily. Many parts of this bill will have little or no direct impact on my State, while parts of the bill could help West Virginia. My first concern when looking at any bill is how it will affect West Virginians. Only then do I look at the broader scope of legislation. In this instance, these concerns coincide. Balancing all that is good against all that is bad in a large and complex bill, I believe this energy bill will do more harm than good to my state, especially to its coal industry, and to the nation as a whole.

The failure to produce a bill the Senate could pass is especially frustrating to me because I have argued for my entire Senate career that the country desperately needs a comprehensive and responsible energy policy. Recently this need has become obvious even to the casual observer. Huge portions of the population suffer blackouts, high natural gas prices threaten our manufacturing base, and highly volatile gasoline prices hurt so many of our citizens. Factors like these compel Congress to make prudent energy policy decisions for our nation. These include developing our domestic energy resources where it can be done without harming the environment, such as is the case with natural gas exploration in the Appalachian Basin that I have promoted by working to extend tax incentives for the types of non-conventional terrain common there. It should include funding advancements in technology, as I have advocated with my support for clean coal tax incentives and related R&D, to preserve the long-term viability of our coal industry. It should include common-sense programs to protect miners and other energy industry workers who do the dangerous work that allows our economy to grow. An energy policy we can all support would do more than pay lip service to improving the reliability of our electrical grid, or to the efficiency and conservation measures that must be part of an effective national energy strategy.

I am sad to say that the Energy conference report misses the mark. We would have done better to simply pass the much more balanced bill the Senate passed in 2002, and again this year. I encourage my Republican colleagues in the strongest terms possible to use that bill as a guide, and to move quickly, with active bipartisan cooperation, on this important issue early next year. This will produce a bill that will enjoy support on both sides of the aisle. I will not hesitate to oppose another flawed bill, like the one we rejected last week that I believe would hurt my State of West Virginia, no matter how many times the majority seeks to shut off debate.

This is a bill I had hoped would help sustain the long-term health of the coal industry. I recognize that the bill contains some clean coal tax incentives, which I have worked hard for years to enact into law, and related research and development. Unfortunately, an Energy conference closedout to Democrats made damaging cuts of 20 percent or more to Senate provisions designed to move the utility industry toward emission-free coal-fired power plants in the foreseeable future. The

R&D goal of $2 billion over 10 years was cut, and then further diluted by including earmarked loan guarantees, including one to strip clean coal technology out of an Alaska demonstration project and reconfigure it as a conventional coal plant. The tax provisions, already reduced from a level coal and utility industry experts project as necessary to truly drive technological development, were cut further. That money was shifted to allow the oil and gas industries to receive almost 49 percent of all tax incentives, while coal, which produces more than 50 percent of the nation's electricity, has to be satisfied with only about 10 percent of the benefit of the bill.

What is probably most troubling for my State of West Virginia is that this bill would tilt a playing field that is far from level already dramatically in the direction of western coal. Under this legislation, companies out west that mine coal on public lands will be required to conduct much less stringent environmental analysis, and then be reimbursed by taxpayers for any costs incurred. At the same time, these companies will be able to mine this coal the taxpayers' coal--and pay lower royalties than have been required until now. Coal from the Powder River Basin is already cost-competitive in parts of the eastern United States with coal mined in Appalachia. Finally, this bill includes a completely unjustified repeal of a 4.3 cent per gallon excise tax railroads pay on diesel fuel, which will make it even cheaper for western coal companies to flood the eastern United States with their product.

Further, I am simply astonished that in a bill that gives an unprecedented amount of taxpayer money to special interests, and which purports to support coal, that House conferees not from coal states demanded that a small but critical provision of mine from last year's Senate bill be removed. This provision, which would have added no additional cost to the bill, called upon the Secretary of Labor to hire, train, and deploy as many Mine Safety Inspectors as she is currently authorized to have. This was meant to overcome a decline in the number of mine inspectors, and therefore, in mine inspections, that predates this administration. This situation, where mine inspectors spend far more time on the road traveling between mines than they ever spend inspecting them for compliance with federal health and safety rules, will become untenable if the nearly 25 percent of inspectors scheduled to retire in the next three to five years actually leave the already-depleted workforce. Let me reiterate: No new authorization; no demand for additional personnel to make sure the coal mines in this country are safe for the miners producing the fuel that generates more than half our electricity. Just hire and train them now so that planned retirements do not leave our miners unprotected by qualified Mine Safety Inspectors. Secretary Chao signed off on the provision last year, and in 2003, Senator Domenici included it in his version of the bill. But it's not in the conference report. I wonder how, in an energy bill that is supposed to be about maximizing our domestic production, we can look the other way at miners' safety.

I would be remiss, if I did not give credit where credit is due. I have worked for many years on incentives to promote natural gas development from non-conventional sources. These so-called section 29 credits, including incentives for the capture of coalmine methane and the production of coke, would, respectively, reinvigorate natural gas drilling in the Appalachian Basin, lower the production costs and increase the safety of coal mining, and help the struggling American steel industry get back on its feet. I have advocated for these incentives during my entire career because I understand how much they would help my State of West Virginia. I was proud, both last year and in 2003, to lead a broad bipartisan coalition in the Senate pushing for extension and expansion of section 29. With regard to these provisions I commend the conferees. Unlike many pieces of our bill that went into conference with the House, I believe the section 29 provisions in the conference report have been greatly improved.

I trust that few Senators cast many votes that are decided purely on the numbers. How much something costs, or how much are we willing to give to this industry or that one play into our decisions, to be sure. But for this Senator, at least, figures tend to be obliterated by the people our actions are helping. We had a chance in this conference report to help a group of people I have taken into my heart, and for whom I probably have spent more hours working than any other. I am speaking of retired coal miners and their surviving spouses.

The Coal Act was created to protect the promise of lifetime health benefits for coal miners, who fueled the nation's post World War II economic growth, and who made salary and pension concessions in exchange for those health benefits. The Coal Act fulfilled a promise first made by President Truman in his 1946 agreement with legendary UMWA President John L. Lewis. In response to a coal strike in the late 1980s and a looming crisis in the miners' health funds, the first Bush administration created the Coal Commission to find a long term solution. Those recommendations became the basis for the Coal Act, which protected the health benefits of more than 100,000 retired miners. Today, there are almost 50,000 retired miners and widows who depend on the Coal Act for their health care security--their average age is about 78. Since enactment, the Coal Act has faced many challenges, but the combination of sharply escalating drug costs and a series of negative court decisions have resulted in a serious deficit in the Funds. That deficit will mean a cut in health benefits next year if Congress does not act to stop it.

We had a chance, in the Energy conference, to shore up the Combined Benefit Fund while also helping make states whole with regard to what was owed them in outstanding Abandoned Mine Land contributions. I have heard promises that both Senate and House Chairmen have made to deal with this issue next year, when the AML Fund is up for reauthorization. For the 80-year old miners' widows who are facing a benefit cut next February, they have heard promises before, but in their behalf I must say that I sincerely hope that next year is not too late.

I am not happy that I must vote against this bill. I am sorry for my State of West Virginia, because it deserves better than this bill gives it. I'm sorry that our balanced bill of 2002 has been replaced with this lopsided monstrosity. I will continue to push my colleagues for a balanced and responsible energy policy for this nation, and I look forward to a time, hopefully soon, when I can vote for such a bill.