Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to talk about one of our Nation's darkest periods, a stain in history we would rather forget but that we cannot ignore. While White mobs committed 4,742 hangings, floggings and burnings of African Americans, the Senate watched indifferently, failing to pass any of the 200 separate bills before it to make lynching a Federal crime. S. Res. 39, expressing the Senate's apology for failing to adopt antilynching legislation, is long overdue. I express my sincere apologies and regret to the families in Arkansas and the Nation, especially to the victims and their descendants, that this body failed to help at a time when they needed it most.

I hope that acknowledging these grave injustices of the past will help begin to heal the wounds that exist today. Even more so, this acknowledgement should serve as a lesson that government must step in to help foster racial reconciliation, ensure the mob mentality never returns, and protect those who are most vulnerable.

The Senate can start by continuing to advance civil rights and equality, and work to close the divide that continues in our neighborhoods, schools and workplaces. I am afraid that if we don't start truly addressing inequities we will look back once again at the Senate's inaction with disdain and remorse.

Most of the worst offenses of lynching occurred in the south and Arkansas was no different. Between the years

1860-1936, 318 lynchings occurred in Arkansas. Of this number, 230 were black, including 6 females. Three-quarters of the lynchings in our State that are recorded were against African Americans.

Of course, statistics don't have a face, they don't feel pain, nor do they hold memories. But people and families all over Arkansas do, and they remember these crimes and the Senate's inaction to protect them.

In March 1892, a reporter from the Christian Recorder reported the chaos and hopelessness occurring throughout the state:

There is much uneasiness and unrest all over this State

among our people, owing to the fact that the people all over

the State are being lynched upon the slightest provocation;

some being strung up to telegraph poles, others burnt at the

stake and still others being shot like dogs.

In the last 30 days there have been not less than eight

colored persons lynched in this State. At Texarkana a few

days ago, a man was burnt at the stake.

In Pine Bluff a few days later two men were strung up and

shot, and this too by the brilliant glare of the electric

lights. At Varner, George Harris was taken from jail and shot

for killing a white man, for poisoning his domestic

happiness.

At Wilmar, a boy was induced to confess to the commission

of an outrage, upon promise of his liberty, and when he had

confessed, he was strung up and shot. Over in Lonoke County,

a whole family consisting of husband, wife and child were

shot down like dogs. Verily the situation is alarming in the

extreme.

There were few honest press accounts of such lynchings, a problem that continues to trouble historians today as they put together the pieces of this period. Most Arkansas press accounts were no different. Lynchers were considered heroes, officers conniving, and the accused guilty.

A case in point:

In 1919, Arkansas would be home to a terrible racial injustice--the so-called Elaine Race Riot.

According to sketchy accounts that have been pieced together by historians, in September 1919, black sharecroppers met to protest unfair settlements for their cotton crops from white plantation owners. Local law enforcement broke up the union's meeting, and the next day a thousand white men, and troops of the U.S. Army, converged on Phillips County to put an end to the black sharecroppers' so-called ``insurrection''.

The number of African-American deaths from this lynching is disputed, ranging from 20 at the low end to 856 men and women on the high end.

The details of the Elaine Race Riot of 1919 have never been formally written down, but Mayor Robert Miller of Helena, AR remembers them vividly.

At the time, Mayor Miller's four uncles were preparing for a hunting trip. Three of them had traveled to a town near Elaine, Helena, AR, for this special occasion, which turned tragic when a mob saw the brothers with guns in hand, and assuming they were part of the ``insurrection,'' all four were immediately killed.

Of the anti-lynching legislation we are considering today, Mayor Miller says, ``It won't change what happened, but at least it's a good thing, a movement in the right direction.''

A 2000 article from the Arkansas Times reports on Arkansas' most high-profile lynching and the lasting impact it has had on families in Arkansas today.

In May 1927, a mentally retarded black man named John Carter was accused of attacking a white mother and daughter. Upon his capture near Little Rock a mob of 100 quickly gathered and prevented police from taking him to Little Rock, where police would protect him from being lynched.

After hanging him from a utility pole, the mob dragged John Carter's body through the city, and burned it in downtown Little Rock at 9th and Broadway.

The Arkansas Times article recounts a conversation that occurred 30 years later, in September 1957 of a mother talking to civil rights pioneer Daisy Bates about the John Carter lynching. The mother had this to say:

I am frightened Mrs. Bates. Not for myself, but for my

children. When I was a little girl, my mother and I saw a

lynch mob dragging the body of a Negro man through the

streets of Little Rock. We were told to get off the streets.

We ran. And by cutting through side streets and alleys, we

managed to make it to the home of a friend.

But we were close enough to hear the screams of the mob,

close enough to smell the sickening odor of burning flesh.

And, Mrs. Bates, they took the pews from Bethel Church to

make the fire. They burned the body of this Negro man right

at the edge of the Negro business section.

The woman speaking to Daisy Bates was named Birdie Eckford. Her daughter Elizabeth, one of the Little Rock Nine, would walk through an angry, threatening crowd the following day to claim her right to an equal education at Little Rock Central High School.

Little Rock Central High School today reminds us of some of the darkest days during the civil rights movement. As a former student, however, I can tell you that it also represents hope and achievement.

The year 2007 will mark the 50th anniversary of the desegregation process at Little Rock Central High School. Last Friday, I spoke with seven members of the Little Rock Nine to tell them that we are closer to funding an adequate visitor center and museum in time for his landmark anniversary.

Minnijean Brown Trickey, one of the Nine, said this Visitors' Center will serve many purposes, but what struck me was her assurance that the Center ``is an opportunity for healing.''

Today's resolution offers similar opportunities. It allows us to remember the past, begin healing from that past, look at how far our Nation has come to address equality and discrimination and rededicate ourselves to acknowledging how much further we must go from here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know we have other Senators on their way to the Chamber to speak.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss something that happened this week in the Senate, something I was involved in, and something that received quite a bit of notice outside this Chamber, and that is a compromise that was reached. I think it was a historic compromise. I think it is a very good thing for the Nation. In fact, I would say it was a win for Democrats, a win for the Republicans, and, most importantly, it was a win for the American people.

Some in my party, some in the other party, may disagree with what I just said, but I think when you look back through American history--and you can look at all the major legislative accomplishments that have occurred--most of those have occurred in this body.

This body is known for its ability to compromise. I look at these chairs and these desks in this body, and I can see the faces of my colleagues and of those who have departed this Chamber. This is a body that has a very special role in American history and in American Government.

I have heard some say they do not like compromise. In fact, I must say I was disappointed--I was listening to talk radio yesterday, and someone said some of us Senators who compromised are in the middle, and no one supports the middle. I cannot disagree more. I think people all over this country are looking for Senators to show leadership, to find common ground. I think that is one result that has been sorely missing in the Congress. When you talk to people outside of the Beltway, that is one result they are hoping for, that we will find that common ground and we will have leadership in Washington that understands you do not have to sacrifice your principles in order to find common ground.

In fact, in the very famous book written by John Kennedy, ``Profiles in Courage,'' he says:

We should not be too hasty in condemning all compromise as

bad morals. For politics and legislation are not matters for

inflexible principles or unattainable ideals.

This is politics. This is a human institution. This is Government. I feel those 14 Senators who reached this agreement--13 of my great colleagues who reached this agreement--took one of the most contentious issues in recent years off the table. Hopefully, they took it off for the remainder of this Congress. I feel as though we took it off for the remainder of the Congress because I sat in those rooms, I talked to my colleagues, and I know the high level of trust we have with one another.

This entire agreement is based on trust. It is an example that amazing things can happen when Senators talk to each other--just talk to each other. I feel that is why the people of Arkansas sent me to Washington, to try to be a bridge builder, to try to be a peacemaker, to try to find common ground on a wide variety of issues that are best for Arkansas and best for the Nation and, in some cases, best for the world.

Senators here in Washington, unfortunately, in the last few years have gotten into the habit of talking about each other and not talking to each other. I hope one of the results that comes from this agreement is a new spirit of bipartisanship, a new commitment that we can reach across party lines, reach across the aisle, to try to work together to solve the challenges that are facing America.

There are many sensible voices in the Senate. Many, many, many--in fact, all--have reasonable minds. And one thing I found a little bit humorous, some of the press coverage about this agreement was that they said these were moderates who reached this agreement. Let me tell you, some were moderates, but many in this group were not moderates, and they would be offended if we called them moderates. In fact, I heard a number of them say ``I don't ever want to be considered a moderate,'' for one reason or another. But they demonstrated a spirit of bipartisanship that I think should be applauded.

Sometimes when you make a compromise, you are taking the easy way out. But this was a compromise that required courage. This compromise required a lot of courage on behalf of all my colleagues, especially-- especially, might I underline--the seven Republicans who entered into this agreement. It was very hard for Democrats and Republicans to do. But I will tell you, I know my seven Republican colleagues who did this, who demonstrated their trust, not just of each of us but of this institution, demonstrated a lot of courage. I take my hat off to them in appreciation.

Two more points I would like to make on this issue.

First, I need to thank three people; that is, my wife Jill, my son Adam, and my daughter Porter. For all I know, they may be watching right now. It is getting pretty close to bedtime around our house. But they made the sacrifice, too, so I could be part of this Senate and be up here away from home. But also, Dad was not home a lot in the last few days because I was here trying to work through this agreement as best I could and trying to get this done. So I thank them.

But in a broader sense, I did this agreement for them because I was very concerned that when you looked at the nuclear option, if that trigger was pulled, you had a nuclear winter that would follow. I was very concerned that the Congress, particularly the Senate, would not get very much done this session.

I thought that would be a huge disservice to the American people. I thought it was time for reasonable minds to come together to try to work something out. In fact, in the Book of Isaiah, it says: ``Come now, let us reason together.'' And maybe that should be something we should take to heart. The people of our States, every State in the Union, only get to send two Senators to Washington.

I think they expect us to exercise good judgment and exercise our discretion and also, from time to time, exercise courage to try to do the right thing.

So I commend my 13 colleagues who entered into this agreement. They took a lot of time and made a lot of sacrifice, and it took a lot of courage. Many of them have taken a lot of criticism for doing this. I want to say publicly that I thank them and I appreciate them and I am proud of them for what they did.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I stand today in support of legislation that will better protect our homeland by securing the trade and handling of ammonium nitrate. While ammonium nitrate is well known in the agriculture community to be an important fertilizer, it has also become a common ingredient in creating highly explosive bombs like the one used in the unforgettable April 1995 bombing attack of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. A little more than a month ago, we reflected on the tenth anniversary of this tragic moment in our nation's history. Despite the enormous potential for misuse if in the wrong hands, the purchase and use of ammonium nitrate is still largely unregulated by the federal government. It is our hope that we can reduce this potential for misuse. By better securing the trade and handling of this chemical, we will make it more difficult for individuals and groups to misuse the chemical and threaten the lives of Americans. The purpose of our legislation is to protect our homeland from future threats and attacks that may be similar in nature to that of the Oklahoma City Bombing while still ensuring that law abiding citizens can use this valuable fertilizer for agricultural activities.

Fertilizer provides essential nutrients to the food we eat by providing an effective source of nitrogen that all crops need to grow. I recognize the importance of fertilizer to our Nation's farming community, and that is why I believe that we must continue the availability of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to farmers in order to maintain the economic, agronomic and environmental benefits that this product provides. I also understand the negative impact of that fertilizer can have on our people if misused by criminals intent on engaging in acts of terror.

Since the 1995 Oklahoma City tragedy, many studies have been conducted by the Federal Government to determine the feasibility and practicability of imposing controls on certain precursor chemicals, including ammonium nitrate. In addition, the fertilizer industry and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) created the ``America's Security Begins with You'' ammonium nitrate security campaign in 1995 as an effort to minimize possible misuse of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. These studies and campaigns have both led to show that it is impossible for the agricultural community to guarantee against the criminal misuse of ammonium nitrate under current laws and regulations and that more can and should be done to protect against this threat.

The agricultural community and the fertilizer industry both recognize that more can and should be done to strengthen the controls regarding the handling and purchase of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in order to ensure American farmers continue to have access to this valued input. I believe that the Federal government must do its part in helping to assure that ammonium nitrate fertilizer stays in the hands of agricultural professionals and encourage all who handle this chemical to protect their community and America by establishing effective security measures.

I am proud to join my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in introducing this legislation along with Senator Chambliss and Senator Roberts. I believe it provides a very practical and workable solution to enhance the secure handling of ammonium nitrate and ensure that ammonium nitrate remains available for agricultural use. ``The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2005'' calls for a federal and state cooperation to secure ammonium nitrate fertilizer. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to enter into cooperative agreements with state departments of agriculture to ensure that any person who produces, stores, sells, or distributes ammonium nitrate registers their facility and maintains records of sales or distribution of the product. As such, purchasers of ammonium nitrate would also be required to register with their state's department of agriculture.

My colleagues and I agree that these requirements are necessary measures that provide additional security for ammonium nitrate fertilizer and will not unduly burden agriculture professionals or farmers who use this product. Furthermore, we firmly believe that this legislation will effectively enhance ongoing security measures by helping to keep ammonium nitrate out of the hands of those who wish to harm our Nation.

I thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as well as the

Chairmen of the Agriculture and Intelligence Committees for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I stand today in support of legislation that will better protect our homeland by securing the trade and handling of ammonium nitrate. While ammonium nitrate is well known in the agriculture community to be an important fertilizer, it has also become a common ingredient in creating highly explosive bombs like the one used in the unforgettable April 1995 bombing attack of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. A little more than a month ago, we reflected on the tenth anniversary of this tragic moment in our nation's history. Despite the enormous potential for misuse if in the wrong hands, the purchase and use of ammonium nitrate is still largely unregulated by the federal government. It is our hope that we can reduce this potential for misuse. By better securing the trade and handling of this chemical, we will make it more difficult for individuals and groups to misuse the chemical and threaten the lives of Americans. The purpose of our legislation is to protect our homeland from future threats and attacks that may be similar in nature to that of the Oklahoma City Bombing while still ensuring that law abiding citizens can use this valuable fertilizer for agricultural activities.

Fertilizer provides essential nutrients to the food we eat by providing an effective source of nitrogen that all crops need to grow. I recognize the importance of fertilizer to our Nation's farming community, and that is why I believe that we must continue the availability of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to farmers in order to maintain the economic, agronomic and environmental benefits that this product provides. I also understand the negative impact of that fertilizer can have on our people if misused by criminals intent on engaging in acts of terror.

Since the 1995 Oklahoma City tragedy, many studies have been conducted by the Federal Government to determine the feasibility and practicability of imposing controls on certain precursor chemicals, including ammonium nitrate. In addition, the fertilizer industry and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) created the ``America's Security Begins with You'' ammonium nitrate security campaign in 1995 as an effort to minimize possible misuse of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. These studies and campaigns have both led to show that it is impossible for the agricultural community to guarantee against the criminal misuse of ammonium nitrate under current laws and regulations and that more can and should be done to protect against this threat.

The agricultural community and the fertilizer industry both recognize that more can and should be done to strengthen the controls regarding the handling and purchase of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in order to ensure American farmers continue to have access to this valued input. I believe that the Federal government must do its part in helping to assure that ammonium nitrate fertilizer stays in the hands of agricultural professionals and encourage all who handle this chemical to protect their community and America by establishing effective security measures.

I am proud to join my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in introducing this legislation along with Senator Chambliss and Senator Roberts. I believe it provides a very practical and workable solution to enhance the secure handling of ammonium nitrate and ensure that ammonium nitrate remains available for agricultural use. ``The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2005'' calls for a federal and state cooperation to secure ammonium nitrate fertilizer. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to enter into cooperative agreements with state departments of agriculture to ensure that any person who produces, stores, sells, or distributes ammonium nitrate registers their facility and maintains records of sales or distribution of the product. As such, purchasers of ammonium nitrate would also be required to register with their state's department of agriculture.

My colleagues and I agree that these requirements are necessary measures that provide additional security for ammonium nitrate fertilizer and will not unduly burden agriculture professionals or farmers who use this product. Furthermore, we firmly believe that this legislation will effectively enhance ongoing security measures by helping to keep ammonium nitrate out of the hands of those who wish to harm our Nation.

I thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as well as the

Chairmen of the Agriculture and Intelligence Committees for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of great importance to my State, one that I hear about every time I go home. Economic development and job creation is something that every Arkansan is concerned about. One surefire way to generate economic development and create jobs is through highway construction. The U.S. DOT estimates that for every $1 billion of investment in highways, 47,500 jobs are created, but the benefits go far beyond that. It does Arkansans no good to have good health care, education, and jobs if they don't have the roads to get there. Furthermore, business investors do not want to place their companies anywhere that does not have ready access to interstate roads.

My State is in the process of building two new interstates that would jumpstart economic growth, relieve congestion, and provide two additional freight corridors between our two largest trading partners.

Future Interstate 49 connects Canada with New Orleans and would provide the only north-south corridor within 300 miles, cutting through Kansas City, MO and Western Arkansas. 1-49 is extremely important to Arkansas, as it traverses the fastest growing part of my State, which is home to Wal-Mart, Tyson's, JB Hunt Transportation, and numerous other transportation companies. The potential for freight movement along this corridor is enormous. However, the State of Arkansas has lacked the funds to make significant progress along the most expensive part of the corridor.

Future Interstate 69 connects Canada with Mexico through Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. It also has enormous potential for freight movement, but it also cuts across the poorest region of my State where economic development is vitally important to the future of local communities. The amount of jobs a project such as I-69 would create has the potential to lift these areas out of poverty.

During debate on the highway bill, I have requested amounts that would provide Arkansas with a sufficient amount of money to make significant progress on these two extremely important roadways.

I thank the Senator from Montana for his question. My understanding is that this amount would be enough to make substantial progress on both projects until the next reauthorization. However, since this bill does not include references to specific projects, the difficulty would be to make sure these projects did indeed receive a large portion of this increase. Since the increases are largely through apportioned programs to the State, could my State use the increases to fund these interstate projects?

I thank Senator Baucus for his hard work as a manager of this bill and the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and I compliment him for this strong bill he has helped put together. The Senator always listens to my concerns, and I appreciate his willingness to include such robust funding for my home State.

Mr. President, I wish to make four points.

First, I voice my opposition to the Allen amendment. NHTSA, in every study I have found, says the best way to reduce fatalities on the highways is for States to enact primary safety belt laws.

Secondly, this bill provides an incentive, not a penalty. That is something we need to remember and understand. This is maybe a departure from past policies, but the bill, as currently written, provides incentives, not penalties.

Third, years ago, the Department of Transportation set an attainment goal of 90 percent. This amendment would move us back to 85 percent. We are moving backward instead of moving toward our goal; we are backing off of the goal.

Fourth, it is not so much about equity or fairness, but it is about saving lives. When you look at the safety groups and listen to the studies and look at the statistics--whatever measure you want to make-- this is about saving lives and States having primary safety belt laws.

I thank the chair.

I understand the Senator's concerns and the intent of my amendment is not to restrict competition or new entrants into the marketplace, but to ensure that we focus our resources on the problem as we now know it. I'll be glad to work with you to perfect this definition so that we can properly protect consumers while also ensuring a fair and open market place for the many different services now being offered.

As a former State attorney general and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Affairs, Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee, I have significant concerns with this approach. I believe the amendment proposes a significant departure from precedent and establishes hurdles that could dissuade State attorneys general from proceeding with their cases, to the detriment of consumers. Allowing State attorneys general to enforce Federal laws and regulations with respect to the transportation of household goods in interstate commerce is perhaps the most important aspect of these provisions, since I believe that State attorneys general are much more likely than the Federal Government to doggedly pursue justice for their citizens in these cases.

Mr. President, I want to talk briefly about an amendment to this bill that I cosponsored with Senators Hutchison and Ben Nelson.

The amendment repealed, for the most part, an unpopular provision that was included in TEA-21 that has never been utilized: the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program. It is also known as the Interstate Tolling Program.

I understand the desire to find new ways to finance our ever-growing transportation needs. Our roads and bridges are deteriorating; our freight, truck, and passenger traffic is increasing. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, we need an annual investment by all levels of government of $92 billion a year just to maintain the current system. To improve it, we need $125.6 billion a year. This bill addresses only a fraction of those needs, but the increased funding compared to levels contained in TEA-21 is a positive step.

I think we can do better, and I think we have a duty to do better. If we can find ways to provide more money for infrastructure without increasing our Nation's deficit, I believe we should do it. I have voted in the past to increase the level of funding in this bill because I believe it is warranted, it is reasonable, and it is the responsible thing to do.

I applaud efforts to try to find new and innovative ways to finance new road building.

The bill creates a new commission to explore alternative sources of revenue for transportation. I think that is a good idea.

However, I cannot agree that it is a good idea to put tolls on interstate highways that have already been paid for with Federal gas tax dollars. That is what the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program does.

This pilot program allows tolling of existing lanes on the Interstate Highway. I think that is bad policy, and that is why I have joined Senator Hutchison, and Senator Nelson in sponsoring an amendment to strip this program from this reauthorization bill.

My amendment does not affect States' ability to finance new interstate construction using tolls. It does not affect States' ability to convert HOV lanes to High Occupancy Toll--HOT--add new voluntary use tolled lanes to their Interstates, or toll non-Interstate roads.

The amendment only prevents tolling on existing interstate lanes, which have already been paid for once by federal gas taxes.

I see this as an issue of double taxation.

We are talking about interstate highways that were built using Federal gas tax money. There are those who want to tax the use of these same roads that have already been paid for.

I understand the desire to find new ways to finance road building. In Arkansas, our State leaders have chosen to increase the State gas tax throughout the years in order to meet its road construction needs.

In fact, Arkansas is in the top half of State gas taxes. Arkansas has acted responsibly, and now there is an effort to institute tolls on existing interstate highways because some States don't want to raise their gas taxes. They would rather tax through tolling:) I think that is unfair.

This is an issue that affects poor, rural residents who have limited transportation options the most. Over the past few years, EAS and Small Community Air Service funding has been cut to many rural communities, including those in my State of Arkansas. AMTRAK is in financial turmoil, and over the road buses such as Greyhound have dramatically cut service.

Tolls on existing roads, which have already been financed and paid for by federal gas taxes increase the burden on these people. Again, I think it is simply unfair. Not only am I concerned about the double taxation issue, but I believe this is a safety Issue.

Tolls on existing Interstates will produce substantial diversion of traffic to other roads. I believe greater volume of truck traffic on local roads is not something we should encourage by placing tolls on the interstates.

There is also an economic downside to tolling the interstate. Businesses along newly tolled roads which rely on highway travelers-- such as truck stops, motels and restaurants--will be hurt economically if significant traffic avoids the toll road.

The bottom line is that I believe allowing tolls on interstate highways that have already been paid for by Federal gas taxes is bad tax policy, is unsafe, and could have very detrimental economic effects. I am hopeful that you will agree with me that tolling existing interstate lanes is a bad idea, and will support our amendment.

Mr. President, I, too, rise and join my colleague from Mississippi in his very eloquent remarks, and my colleague from Ohio.

I know the Senator from Illinois is waiting to speak in a few moments.

I rise in opposition to the Allen amendment. I understand the intentions, but I think the statistics and the numbers and the reality make it clear that the American people are better off under the provisions as they currently exist in the bill. More States benefit from the Senate Commerce primary belt law provision. There are 19 States currently that have primary seatbelt laws on their books and they will qualify for funding immediately. Only 14 States have an 85- percent seatbelt use rate, according to the 2004 numbers. That is what you need to qualify under the terms of this amendment. So more people would benefit and be rewarded for having the primary seatbelt law.

I think the provisions of the Commerce Committee's bill guarantee funding if the State does one thing, and that is either have or pass a primary belt law. Under the amendment we are talking about right now, a State has no certainty that any action it takes will increase belt use that will result in 85-percent or higher rate use.

This amendment would, if enacted, abandon a very important goal, and that is, for several years the Department of Transportation has set a goal of 90-percent seatbelt usage. The amendment in question would set a goal basically at 85 percent. I have a concern. Knowing human nature and the way things work sometimes, I think folks might give up at 85 percent and never try to reach that 90 percent. So I think the DOT policy is a good one. I think it is designed to save lives. It is a commonsense approach. As Senator Lott said a few moments ago, States that have a primary seatbelt law on average show the increase in seatbelt usage by 11 percentage points. He tried to drive that home a few moments ago. I think that is a very powerful statistic.

Primary seatbelt laws are also the fastest and the cheapest way to save lives. The NHTSA administrator, Jeff Runge, M.D., said of the provisions in the current bill that they would save more lives, do it faster and cheaper than any other highway safety proposal Congress is likely to consider this decade.

So the experts agree, the numbers agree, and last, let me say, the safety groups agree. These are the people out there every single day fighting for better laws and more safe vehicles, safer roads, et cetera. They agree. The proposal in the current bill, not in the amendment but in the bill, is supported by the National Safe Kids Campaign, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Automotive Coalition for Insurance Association, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Mazda, the Automotive Occupants Restraint Council, the Traffic Safety, the National Safety Council, the American Insurance Association. It incentivizes States to pass these primary seatbelt laws. The experts agree the way to save lives on America's highways is to try to pass these seatbelt laws.

I, like Senator Lott, do not have a primary seatbelt law in my State. Typically I think States should have the rights to make these decisions, and certainly every State does. But what we do is give a bonus, an extra incentive for States to consider, State legislators, Governors, et cetera, to consider passing these type of laws because it will benefit their citizens and benefits the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment when it comes up.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to offer my support for the motion to waive the budget point of order and also to support the efforts of the Senator from Oklahoma and urge my colleagues to also support those efforts. This legislation is 2 years overdue. I am very pleased we are finally making some headway on getting this done. Forcing our States to operate under the uncertainty caused by short-term extensions is no way to govern. We are now in the sixth extension, and it is my hope that we are able to complete our work in the Senate and complete the conference before the current extension expires at the end of the month.

I also thank Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Baucus for their very hard work on this bill and all the time they have spent and their efforts in working in such a bipartisan way. I also thank Senator Shelby and Senator Sarbanes on the hours they have put in on the transit portion, and I thank Senators Lott and Inouye, as chairman and cochair of the Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine for their work on the safety portions of this bill.

Economic development is a very important part of any infrastructure development--we talked about that a little bit this morning already-- but not at the expense of the safety of families. This bill enhances the safety of our roadways.

As a member of the Commerce Committee, I was very happy to have the opportunity to play a role in developing the safety titles. It is good legislation that will increase the safety of our highways for all Americans, and it is bipartisan legislation, developed with the input of safety groups, industry, the administration, as well as State and local officials.

Every great nation in the history of the world has flourished because of improvements to its infrastructure. If you look at the great periods of development and invention in the world, almost all of them have coincided with advances in transportation options, whether it is safely moving people, expanding trade, or increasing contact between cultures. My constituents remind me all the time about the importance of roads and relieving congestion and creating economic growth--virtually every time I go to Arkansas. Last week when I was there, people were asking me, when in the world are you going to get the highway bill done?

Our constituents are very smart. As I travel the State I hear the same four things over and over, and I believe they are right. They tell me the four things we must accomplish in this highway bill are, No. 1, we must produce a highway bill that addresses critical infrastructure needs that are not currently being met; No. 2, we must produce a highway bill to spur economic development and the creation of jobs.

How is my time doing, Mr. President?

I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

I will make it quick. I thank the Senator for yielding the time.

No. 3, we must produce a highway bill to increase the safety of our transportation system for American families and, No. 4, we must produce a highway bill that anticipates future needs.

I could go on and on about how important it is for job creation, which we talked about a few moments ago; about how much more congested our highways are today as opposed to 10 years ago, and how congested they will be in 20 years from now.

I offer my support and encourage my colleagues to support the efforts of Senator Inhofe and others as we go through this very important legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor Danville High School which was recently selected to receive the 2005 GRAMMY Signature School Enterprise Award. The GRAMMY Signature School Program recognizes the top public high schools in the Nation that have made an outstanding commitment to music education during the school year. The GRAMMY Foundation will award Danville High School $20,000 to benefit its music program.

I commend the Danville Music Department personnel--Alana Smith, head band director and department head; Julianna Sommers, choir/elementary director; and Julie Rutherford, assistant band director, for their vision, but most of all for their commitment to provide such a quality music education to the young people of Danville.

I would also like to recognize the following students for their contributions to the Danville High School Music Program: Jessica Harris, Dana Mendoza, Jasimen Fedison, Jessica Bryant, Patrice Davis, Marlene Mendoza, Yvette Huerta, Daniel Melton, Aaron Sanders, Devon Essman, Nicholas Patterson, Joe Claudio, Baillie Villareal, Anna Garza, Jose Ojeda, Mayra Iracheta, Tiffaney Small, Ashley Hancock, Samantha Turner, Heather Gooch, Akoshua Davis, Janet Claudio, Jorge Mendoza, Vikki Xayadeth, and Margarita Dominguez.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Danville High School and these outstanding teachers and students on receiving this well- deserved honor.

Mr. President, I stand with Senator Saxby Chambliss and strongly support his amendment to ensure the C-130J contracts continue without interruption this year.

The C-130J has quickly been adapted to play vital and unique roles in our national defense efforts. Today, both U.S. and Allied C-130Js are performing operational missions in CENTCOM with a mission capable rate of over 90 percent. The J performs missions in Iraq in 1 day that requires the C-130E or H model 2 days. It is equally critical for relief operations like the Tsunami effort in Asia, where lives were spared due to the C-130Js quick capabilities.

I have made several visits to the Little Rock Air Force Base, the premier training facility for the C-130J, and I have seen first hand the J model's new features and capabilities. The C-130Js climb higher and faster, flies at higher cruise speeds, takes off and lands in a shorter distance, and is easier, safer and cheaper to operate than its predecessor.

The military officials and troops who I have talked with want to continue using C-130Js and they depend on the model's new features on the ground. Cutting production of the C-130Js would not only deny our soldiers the cutting-edge technology they need on today's battlefield, but it would leave the Air Force and Marine Corps with an aging and far less capable tactical airlift.

As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Air Force recently grounded or severely restricted the flying of 90 C-130s due to old age. Eighty- four of these carriers are assigned to the Active-Duty Air Force. By further terminating the contracts for C-130Js, we would be leaving the Air Force unable to meet its future tactical requirements. The Air Force will be 116 aircraft short of requirement and the Marine Corps will be short 18 aircraft.

Terminating the C-130J contracts is short-sighted from a tactical standpoint, but it is also foolish from a financial standpoint. Terminating the current contracts could cost taxpayers more than the cost of building new carriers. Liability fees for ending the C-130J multiyear contracts are estimated at $1.3 billion for the Air Force and $0.3 billion for the Marine Corps for a total of $1.6 billion. This estimate does not

include the increased costs of maintaining aging planes.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help ensure our military has the equipment it needs to effectively and safely carry out their missions, now and in the future.

amendment no. 379, as modified

Mr. President, I congratulate students from Valley View High School in Jonesboro, AR for winning their statewide competition and earning the chance to come to our Nation's capital to compete in the national finals of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution''. Led by their teacher Dana Shoemaker, students Jarrett Clark, Virginia Gray, Tyler Isbell, Zachery Lesley, Ryan McCormack, Ashley Perryman, Whitney Philamlee, Olga Redko, Elizabeth Renshaw, Laura Stahl, and Molly Throgmorton will join more than 1,200 students from across the country to take part in the weekend-long competition.

``We the People'' is a nationwide program developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and it provides a unique and valuable opportunity for high school students to learn about the foundations of the Federal Government while spending time in Washington, D.C., the center of American civic engagement.

It is a wonderful thing that these students have taken such an interest in government and the political system. The vibrancy of our democracy depends on the active participation of its citizens. And with every new generation, we are faced with the challenge of educating our future leaders in the value of civic engagement. I am happy that the parents and teachers of these students from Jonesboro are meeting that important challenge and that the students are taking an active role in their own education by participating in such an enriching program.

While in Washington, the students will participate in a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing, in which they testify before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and have opportunities to evaluate and debate positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. It is important to note that the Educational Testing Service--ETS, the world's largest private educational testing and research organization, characterizes the ``We the People'' program as a ``great instructional success.'' Independent studies by ETS have revealed that ``We the People'' students ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.'' I am delighted that the Valley View Blazers can take advantage of such a great opportunity.

These 11 students from Jonesboro certainly deserve recognition for their hard work and talent. Through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and our political system, they have earned the right to compete at the highest level. I am proud that such fine young ladies and gentlemen will be representing my state on the national stage, and I am honored to acknowledge their accomplishment.

I wish these students the best of luck at the ``We the People'' national finals, and I applaud their outstanding achievement.

Mr. President, on the evening of October 16, 1978, white smoke curled from a chimney atop the Sistine Chapel signaling the election of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla of Poland. The crowds in St. Peter's Square roared with great enthusiasm, even before they knew of the extraordinary papacy he would lead for 26 years.

As our Nation continues to grieve the loss of Pope John Paul II, we have spent much time looking back at his accomplishments--decisions and actions made within the walls of the Vatican and those he brought abroad through Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia.

His steady beliefs and convictions helped inspire peace and human dignity throughout the world. He taught not just Catholics, but people of all religions, the power of faith, principles and courage. And he taught us to use this power to address the social and economic issues that we face each day with truth and morality.

While people may disagree with his conclusions on specific issues, John Paul II's consistent efforts to promote the value of all people remained steadfast. He led by example, exposing overlooked areas of the developing world--those infested with poverty to lands overrun with land minds--and he did so without alienating or rejecting persons or world leaders who disagreed with him. Under his leadership, the Communist domination of Poland came to end, the Vatican and the State of Israel established diplomatic relations, and an unprecedented effort to cleanse the church's conscience began.

On his fifth and final trip to the United States in 1999, Pope John Paul II reminded a flourishing country to look beyond material growth and address the poverty, the spread of gangs, drugs and violence staring us in the face.

Just a few years later, he stood with us, a broken nation, on September 11, 2001, to help victims, friends, and families grieve for their loved ones and turn their loss into good.

Today I stand with Arkansans to offer prayer and to pay homage to Pope John Paul II, one of the most inspirational leaders of our time and a great defender of faith.

Mr. President, in 2002, this Congress entered into a contract with our farmers, and today what we are discussing is--believe it or not--actually breaking that contract with America's farmers. Let's not just focus on the farmers, because the agriculture bill is much broader than that, including children and nutrition programs, poor people on food stamps, and every consumer who buys food in this country. As it now stands, America spends less on food than any other nation in the world. If this passes, that might change.

I support deficit reduction. We know that. The farmers have already contributed over $16 billion to deficit reduction. That is according to CBO. When you look at the numbers, they are very clear. Farm spending only amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending, but accounts for 17 percent of the Nation's GDP and 25 million jobs.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 213.

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

Mr. President, I offer an amendment to increase the funding for LIHEAP from $1.8 billion to $3 billion. This amendment is fully offset. LIHEAP has received level funding for more than 20 years, but energy prices have not remained level. They have not remained stable. In fact, they are at all-time highs. We all have stories such as this from our States. Recently, a mother of two from Arkansas turned on her electric oven in order to heat the house, burned the house down, and killed her two daughters. We all have similar stories such as that from around the Nation.

This is an amendment that will help the people who need it most in all of our States.

I call amendment 252, as modified, to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mr. President, amendment 252, as modified, creates a reserve fund for the extension of the treatment of combat pay as earned income for purposes of the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit. This actually is something the Senate signed off on last year, but it was knocked out in conference. I certainly would appreciate positive consideration for this amendment.

Mr. President, yesterday I inadvertently missed a vote on an amendment to increase funding for AMTRAK by $1.4 billion. The amendment would have been paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. If I were present I would have voted yea.

AMTRAK is important to Arkansas. By shifting the AMTRAK funding burden to States we are doing a real disservice to those people in rural America who rely on rail service. And without adequate assistance, I fear we will witness a rapid decrease in Amtrak's performance and infrastructure, and the end of rail service for my State.

I think it should be a goal of AMTRAK to achieve economic viability and I am open to discussions on how best to achieve that goal. But in this budget we should not ignore their funding needs or the needs of our rail passengers and State and local governments. I commend Senator Robert Byrd for this amendment and I regret having inadvertently missed this vote.

vote explanation