Floor Statements

Mr. President, this amendment would boost the amount of funding in the budget to allow for a highway bill totaling $318 billion. That is the same size as the highway bill we passed last year. Every Senator should look at the table on their desk and see how much money and how many jobs he or she is foregoing by voting against this amendment. The offsets for the amendment are not new taxes. The offsets are precisely the same offsets that were used in the finance title of last year's highway bill. I urge the Senate to approve the amendment.

Mr. President, I voted in support of Senator Smith's amendment to strike $14 billion in Medicaid cuts from the budget resolution and instead create a bipartisan Medicaid commission to study how to best reform the program.

Sound policy--not arbitrary budget cuts--should be the driving force for strengthening and improving the Medicaid program. A Medicaid commission could help foster a much-needed dialogue about how to take prudent steps to make this critical safety net stronger and sustainable in the long term.

More than 40 million Americans, including 300,000 West Virginians, rely on Medicaid. In West Virginia, the health care safety net-- comprised of hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, physician offices, and community health centers--relies heavily on Federal Medicaid funding to care for the poor, disabled, and elderly.

If Medicaid funding is capped at an arbitrary funding level, states, such as West Virginia, will be left to shoulder the burden of increasing health care costs on their own. The health care needs of low-income people do not magically disappear just because there are fewer federal funds made available.

It is my hope that a bipartisan consensus of policies can be reached to best address the challenges confronting the Medicaid program. The passage of the Smith Amendment to establish a Medicaid commission is a constructive first step toward that goal.

Amendment No. 216

Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished majority leader, will there be a session tomorrow?

If we are not going to have a session, my first inquiry would be, how many days will the Record remain open for statements?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, upon the conclusion of the vote, I may be recognized to make some statements for the Record.

Mr. President, Smithers, WV, is a town of 904 residents on the banks of the Kanawha River, just outside of the state capitol of Charleston. Last October some 1,500 active coal miners and retirees, along with their wives, their children, their families, sat inside a hot and crowded gymnasium trying to cope with how, in a few short weeks, their lives had been turned upside down.

Two months earlier, a bankruptcy judge whom they had never met, and who resides in another state, vitiated their collective bargaining agreement. In West Virginia, this judge cost 270 active miners their jobs, and, along with 1,270 retirees and their dependents, rescinded their health benefits. These folks gathered in that gymnasium trying to understand what had happened and what could be done.

They are the Horizon miners. They are good, strong people. They devote themselves to their labors, and take pride in their work. They are committed, hardworking individuals who contribute much and ask for nothing more than simple fairness. And so imagine how they are made to feel, the anguish, frustration, and betrayal they are made to feel, when they learn the health benefits they labored for, the job security they I toiled for, has been taken away.

One can hardly blame these workers for feeling as though the world has ganged up on them. Their former employer, Horizon Natural Resources, for which they loyally worked for many years, had lobbied intensely in bankruptcy court to eliminate the health benefits of its own employees. In a U.S. court, where every honest man should expect a fair shake from an impartial judge, these workers were betrayed by the judicial system.

The judge, with the rap of a gavel, vitiated the 1992 Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act, legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President, to provide qualified coal miners with guaranteed health benefits, a promise dating back to President Harry S. Truman's pledge to John L. Lewis in 1946. One judge overturned a 60- year-old promise that had been codified by the Congress and endorsed by three Presidents. It was a disgraceful, shameful act.

These Horizon coal miners, betrayed by their employer, beguiled by the courts, now turn to their elected representatives in the Congress for help. And, thanks in large part to the efforts of Congressman Nick Rahall and Senators Rockefeller and Specter, the Senate is in a position to get something done.

Building on Senator Rockefeller's efforts, Senator Specter has introduced legislation to help the Horizon miners. I urge the Judiciary Committee to take a careful look at that legislation. I urge the committee to hold hearings, and to listen to the plight of those coal miners and their families affected by Horizon's bankruptcy. This is an issue that affects not just the Horizon coal miners, but workers across the Nation who have seen their pension and health benefits taken from them.

It is happening across West Virginia. It is happening across the Appalachian region. It is happening in Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois. In West Virginia, it is affecting elderly workers who are near retirement. What security they had is gone. What they had been promised, they have no time to get back. In such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the Congress to take action.

I urge the Finance Committee, as well as the Judiciary Committee, to consider these issues. I urge both committees to hold hearings and solicit

testimony from those workers affected. The chairman of the Finance Committee has said that his committee ought to look at the issues raised by Senators Specter and Rockefeller in the context of a comprehensive review and a comprehensive solution. That makes sense, and I am encouraged by his statement.

Abraham Lincoln reminds us that ``Inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labor, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labor has produced them.''

The Horizon miners labored for their health benefits, and they ought by right have them. Let us organize our efforts. Let us build momentum, and let us, at long last, take a stand in defense of the men and women who epitomize America's time-honored work ethic.

Mr. President, this Sunday is special for two reasons. It is the first day of spring and it is also Palm Sunday, the beginning of the Christian Holy Week. Both events mark triumphant arrivals, of Jesus into Jerusalem, and the start of the season of rebirth, of lengthening days, warm earth, and growing things.

At this time of year, many people quote an adage to the effect that ``March comes in like a lion, and goes out like a lamb.'' An unknown poet said it better:

The March wind roars

Like a lion in the sky,

And makes us shiver

As he passes by.

When winds are soft,

And the days are warm and clear,

Just like a gentle lamb,

Then spring is here.

The exact origins of the March saying are not clear. Observers of the weather may assert that the saying reflects common springtime weather patterns, when shifting pressure gradients create the strong gusty winds so closely associated with March. Indeed, March marks the beginning of the tornado season in North America. We have certainly seen some strong cold winds recently, shaking the few remaining dry brown leaves out of the trees and whirling them across lawns and roads. Daffodils and crocus have been lured into bloom only to be buried under snow or ice. This year, winter is still roaring in March, with howling winds, snowstorms, ice, and rain across the nation. The poet Henry Van Dyke (1852-1933) once observed that:

The first day of spring is one thing, and first spring day

is another. The difference between them is sometimes as great

as a month.

We can but hope that the gentle lamb-like weather arrives soon.

Some skywatchers believe the adage has a heavenly source. They point out that the constellation Leo, the lion, is rising in the eastern horizon at the beginning of March, hence the ``coming in like a lion,'' while Aries, the ram, sets on the western horizon at the end of March, and so ``departs like a lamb.'' Some Christian observers point out that March is typically a Lenten month, in which Jesus, the Lamb of God, is sacrificed on the cross, only to return in the future as the Lion of Judah to rule over the world of men.

I do not know which theory is correct, but each is plausible and intriguing. They provide food for thought as gardeners rake out flower beds and till vegetable plots on the warm, sunny afternoons that crop out amid the rain and late snow flurries. They reassure us that, whichever is true, the world is behaving normally. If we are only patient a little while longer, the March winds will push winter along and leave the glorious spring in their wake.

Age is supposed to bring with it patience, but I find that each year I am just as eager for spring to arrive as I was when I was a boy. I may be even more eager than I was as a boy, since snowball fights and sledding down hills have been replaced with shoveling walks, scraping icy windshields, and higher heating bills. I am ready to shed my winter coat, ready to feel the sun on my face, ready to see the flowers bloom and the grass grow. I am ready to plant a few tomatos. I may not run through the fields and woods anymore, but I like to sit outside with my wife, Erma, and watch our little dog explore the backyard. I look forward to watching my grandchildren hunt for Easter eggs in the soft, new grass.

The vernal equinox marks the first day of spring, the perfect balance of light and dark, day and night. On Sunday, for the first time each year, day and night are equal. But then the sun triumphs over the dark days of winter. Each day through the spring, the period of sunlight grows a little longer, like the grass in the yard. Each day, the birds start singing a little earlier, and continue their song just a little later in the evening.

For winter's rains and ruins are over,

And all the season of snows and sins;

The days dividing lover and lover,

The light that loses, the night that wins;

And time remembered is grief forgotten

And frosts are slain and flowers begotten,

And in green underwood and cover Blossom by blossom the

spring begins.

So wrote the poet Algernon Charles Swinburne--1837-1909--in his 1965 poem, ``Atalanta in Calydon.'' In March, the daffodils, crocus, and forsythia bloom, adding their springtime yellow and Lenten purple to winter's faded palette of gray and brown. But look closely, and you can see buds swelling into life on twigs and branches. Vibrant reddish buds reassure gardeners that the roses came through the winter, and will soon grace us with their beauty and sweet fragrance. The glorious parade of bloom and blossom will soon begin.

It seems more than happy coincidence that Easter is a springtime event. Like spring itself, the story of Easter is one of rebirth, of light triumphing over darkness. Palm Sunday, the arrival of Jesus into Jerusalem those many years ago, is shadowed with the knowledge of the dark days to come--Jesus' betrayal, capture, and tortured procession with the cross on his back and crown of thorns on his brow. But after his death comes his resurrection and ascension, his rise from the darkness of the tomb to the light of Heaven.

Each spring, as we relive his great sacrifice for us, we can rejoice in his great promise of rebirth, even as we are surrounded by the earth's rebirth.

The celebration of birth and growth persists even in the most commercialized aspects of today's Easter celebration. Like the March winds adage, the origins of the Easter egg have been lost to time, but for untold centuries, eggs have symbolized fertility, resurrection and new life. The ancient Greeks, Persians, and Chinese exchanged eggs during their spring festivals. Some pagan traditions held that Heaven and Earth were formed from two halves of an egg.

Christian traditions have adapted this ancient symbol to the Easter ritual, wedding the ideas of earthly rebirth to spiritual resurrection. Once forbidden during Lent in the Middle Ages, eggs reappeared on Easter Sunday on the dinner table as well as being given as gifts. In Greece, eggs are dyed red to represent the blood of Christ. In Germany and Austria, green eggs are exchanged on Maundy, or Holy, Thursday. Many cultures have developed elaborate decorations for blown or hardboiled eggs, from the graphic Russian `pysanki' eggs to those with religious symbols and scenes carefully painted on them.

Whatever the tradition, Easter eggs remain a springtime delight. The fun of making them is overcome only by the fun of hiding them and watching small hands tightly clutching decorated baskets loaded with their brightly colored bounty. Of course, today's Easter baskets are also filled with chocolate eggs, jelly beans, and marshmallow treats-- some 90 million chocolate Easter bunnies, 700 million marshmallow Peeps, and 16 billion jellybeans each year, according to some reports. Older Easter food traditions, such as the hot cross buns once given to the poor by monks, and pretzels, with crossed arms resembling a person at prayer, have fallen from favor before this onslaught of sugar.

As Erma and I watch our children, our children's children, and now, our great-grandchildren, continue this happy custom, we are thankful once again for these, our blessings. Their new lives, like those of children everywhere, are treasured gifts. On this coming Easter, in this first week of spring, I know I am not alone in giving thanks.

I close with a short poem by Louise Seymour Jones, called ``Who Loves a Garden.'' In just a few lines, she marries the spheres of heaven and earth,

the greening of the land, the rebirth of the flowers as well as the spirit, and work that is a labor of love.

Who Loves a Garden

Who loves a garden

Finds within his soul

Life's whole;

He hears the anthem of the soil

While ingrates toil;

And sees beyond his little sphere

He waving fronds of heaven, clear.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Can the Chair inform the Senate as to how many days speeches will be received for printing in the Record before the recess formally begins?

Very well. I am informed, Mr. President, that the Senate will be in this coming Monday for a brief period for acceptance of speeches only. Yes. All right. I thank the Chair. That answers my question sufficiently.

Mr. President, I thank all Senators, I thank the staff, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on March 9, 2005, President Bush went to Columbus, OH for one of his many town hall meetings. Besides attempting to sell his Social Security plan, he also spoke about the need for a national energy policy. Not surprisingly, he raised the specter of high gas prices, increasing natural gas rates, and electricity blackouts as a justification to pass his energy plan. However, this issue needs more than just rhetoric. It needs real solutions.

The American people need look no further than the President's budget request to question that commitment to a serious energy policy. The President has cut funding for a number of important energy programs in his budget. For example, he has said that he supports clean coal technologies. He started professing his support on the campaign trail in October 2000, and he promised to commit $2 billion over 10 years for the Clean Coal Technology demonstration program. This is the very program that I started back in 1985. Yet, each of his five budgets has failed to meet that goal. This year, he only requested $50 million, instead of the promised $200 million. In effect, he has promised those in the coal fields one dollar but has only anted up two bits. Furthermore, he touts the need for the FutureGen project but cannot say where the funding for this facility is going to come from down the road. His only option right now is to raid other clean coal programs, and I will not stand by and let him rob Peter to pay Paul.

The White House has proposed and the Majority has adopted just $4.56 billion in energy tax incentives over five years in this Fiscal Year 2006 budget. How much did the President include for clean coal tax incentives in this year's budget request, or in previous years' budget requests? Nothing! We cannot demonstrate and deploy the next generation of clean coal technologies based on what this administration is actually willing to put on the table. The administration's co-called support for the clean coal technology programs is indicative of its support for so many important energy programs. This administration's much narrower package of energy tax incentives is inadequate to achieve our national energy policy goals.

I have long believed that the U.S. needs a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy. The looming concerns of electricity blackouts, energy prices, and increased dependence on foreign energy sources represent ominous clouds on the horizon. Sadly, our energy problems, like so many other challenges, are being addressed with ever shrinking funds and band-aid solutions. The pattern has been repeated over and over again. The Bush administration generates new initiatives, fails to fully fund them, and then simultaneously cuts other important programs. At the same time, we have witnessed attempts to put a moratorium on federal gas taxes, to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and to make secretive deals with Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. We have endeavored to treat the symptoms, rather than the core problem, for far too long. This President may talk a good game, but how are we going to fix our energy ills with this President's prescription?

The United States needs affordable, reliable, and clean energy resources and technologies to support a growing economy and a healthy environment. We need a comprehensive, balanced, and diversified national energy policy that will promote a strong energy efficiency program and bolster our Nation's coal, natural gas, oil, renewable, nuclear, and other clean domestic energy technologies. A strong energy policy must help to maintain and upgrade these our critical energy infrastructure and support, retain, and create energy-related manufacturing and other service jobs that are an underpinning of our economy. A bipartisan energy strategy should encourage increased use of the most advanced energy supply and energy efficiency technologies and must support increased investments in an array of energy research and development programs.

Our Nation needs to begin defining alternative pathways and new approaches that go beyond the extremist debates and simplistic solutions that define our very demanding energy security and environmental challenges. It is time to move along that path. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support an appropriate, equitable, and diversified mixture of at least $15.5 billion in targeted energy tax incentives over the next ten years, and I urge the Finance Committee to find offsets so that this can be done in a fiscally sound way.

In the 108th Congress, the Senate supported a similar level for energy incentives. The Senate's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution, the last budget that Congress passed, provided for $15.5 billion in energy tax incentives over ten years. In 2003, the Senate Finance Committee adopted and the Senate passed a balanced and bipartisan package of energy tax incentives in the amount of $19.8 billion over ten years as a part of the Senate Energy Policy Act of2003, part of which was offset. I supported that energy tax package as it provided an array of targeted energy incentives, including approximately $2 billion to deploy advanced clean coal technologies.

Such an energy tax incentives package would help strengthen the economy, enhance our Nation's energy resources, promote an array of advanced energy technologies, increase jobs, and provide for a healthy environment. Is there a Member in this Chamber who is opposed to that? If there are going to be tax cuts in this budget, then we must increase funding for a range of energy tax incentives. Supporting at least $15.5 billion in energy tax incentives will send a strong message that these incentives are necessary to develop a national energy policy, and I urge my colleagues to stand with me in this request. Unless we can increase the pie for all of these energy technology approaches, there will not be enough to achieve our energy goals in any serious way.

Mr. President, this budget comes to Congress from the White House at a time when our country is fighting two wars. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, the young men and women of our Armed Forces are on the front lines, risking life and limb in service to our country.

These troops follow in a proud tradition that stretches back for generations. The troops who now serve in Baghdad or Kabul may well have fathers who served in Saigon or the Mekong Delta. The fathers of these fathers may have fought at Okinawa or Normandy, and their fathers might well have served in the second battle of the Marne. But no matter where these troops were sent to defend our country, no matter when they served our country, they have all earned the title, veteran.

Veterans have sacrificed for this country, but the budget proposed by the Bush Administration, and the budget resolution being debated on the floor of the Senate, forces more sacrifice upon our veterans. This budget short-changes veterans health care by billions. This budget would force many veterans to pay $250 dollar annual enrollment fees. This budget would require veterans to pay more for prescription medicines.

In fact, this budget is intended to drive so-called ``low priority veterans'' out of the VA health care system. The Department of Veterans Affairs budget documents foresee a 16 percent reduction in the number of ``low priority veterans'' that can receive care in VA hospitals.

What a shameful phrase that is: ``low priority veteran.'' There were no ``low priority soldiers'' during the Tet offensive. There were no ``low priority sailors'' at the battle of Midway. There were no ``low priority Marines'' at the battle of Fallujah.

But when these same soldiers, sailors, and Marines go to the VA hospital to get the health care they earned through serving our country in times of war, the Bush Administration is trying to give some of them the brush-off: ``Go somewhere else,'' this budget says to hundreds of thousands of veterans. ``Your health care is a low priority for the U.S. Government.''

It is no wonder that the Disabled American Veterans call the Bush budget proposal ``one of the most tight-fisted, miserly budgets for veterans programs in recent memory.''

I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our nation's leading veterans service organizations, as I have always stood with them, in calling for Congress to correct the President's ill-considered budget proposal that under funds veterans health care and raises fees for millions of so- called ``low priority veterans.''

During markup of the budget resolution in the Budget Committee, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Murray to increase spending on veterans health care by $2.85 billion in the next fiscal year. This amendment would have provided the funds necessary to reverse the administration's policy on cutting access to VA health care by certain veterans. It is shameful that this amendment fell victim to a party line vote. Providing adequate funds to support our veterans should never be a partisan issue.

Mr. President, I am proud to once again support an amendment to add $2.85 billion to the veterans health care budget. I commend Senator Akaka and Senator Murray for bringing this important amendment to the floor of the Senate. I stand with the veterans of West Virginia and the 49 other States of the Union in supporting these funds that are owed to those who have served our country in times of war, and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. President, for fiscal year 2006, the President's budget seeks the complete elimination of direct subsidies for Amtrak. The budget resolution presumes enactment of the budget proposals for transportation which would result in bankruptcy for Amtrak. My amendment, which has cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, would increase Amtrak funding by $1.05 billion in fiscal year 2006.

If Senators really desire all Amtrak services to come to an immediate and grinding halt for lack of a Federal subsidy in 2006, they will vote against the amendment. Across the Northeast corridor, the busiest urban transportation corridor in the Nation, elimination of Amtrak's premier service would be a transportation disaster. Elimination of Amtrak service would have disastrous results in both rural and urban America.

The elimination of an Amtrak subsidy is not a recipe for a streamlined railroad; it is not a recipe for a more efficient railroad. It is a recipe for a dead railroad--a dead railroad, dead, dead, dead railroad.

I urge Senators to vote for my amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment at the conclusion of my remarks. It will be cosponsored by my colleagues as follows: Senators Clinton, Specter, Corzine, Murray, Rockefeller, Carper, Schumer, Durbin, Lautenberg, Kerry, Dorgan, and Obama.

Adoption of my amendment will provide a measure of financial stability to our Nation's passenger railroad--Amtrak. My amendment will also provide a measure of certainty regarding the continuation of rail service in our country to Amtrak's 25 million annual passengers and its almost 20,000 employees.

Let me be clear: this is not a Democratic amendment or a Republican amendment. It is an American amendment. It is an amendment to help rural America and urban America alike.

The Omnibus Appropriations Act for the current fiscal year provided Amtrak with a subsidy of roughly $1.2 billion. That level of funding is anticipated to allow Amtrak to continue to operate for the remainder of this fiscal year, though its cash reserves are expected to continue to deteriorate during that time.

For fiscal year 2006, President Bush's budget seeks the complete elimination of direct subsidies to Amtrak. The request for Amtrak as we know it is zero--not a penny. The only funding that the administration has requested for inter-city passenger rail service is $360 million, which would be set aside solely for the purpose of ensuring the continuation of existing local commuter rail services that depend on the use of Amtrak property, once Amtrak, as a company, has ceased to operate.

Recently, there has been a great deal of press attention regarding the fact that the administration has proposed to push Amtrak into bankruptcy. Indeed, page 243 of the President's budget is quite explicit regarding the administration's plan.

It states that, ``with no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy.''

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has recently held a spate of press conferences and stated that President Bush is a strong supporter of passenger rail service in our country. Well, all I can say is that the President has found a very strange way to show his support. By eliminating the annual Federal subsidy to Amtrak in its entirety, President Bush has threatened to leave 25 million passengers standing at the platform. He is threatening to push those 25 million passengers onto our already congested highways and runways and he is threatening to isolate dozens of communities across the nation who do not have air service and are now being threatened with being eliminated from the national railroad map.

The budget resolution before us assumes that overall domestic discretionary funding will be at the level requested by the President. As such, it also presumes enactment of the President's budget proposals for transportation, including the complete elimination of Amtrak's funding.

This amendment would increase the funding for function 400, the transportation function by $1.04 billion in fiscal year 2006. When combined with the $360 million that the President has requested for the continuation of commuter services in the event of Amtrak's termination, my amendment would bring total rail passenger funding up to $1.4 billion in 2006. My amendment would increase the cap over discretionary spending by the commensurate $1.04 billion. The amendment would be completely offset by an increase in revenues through the closing of corporate tax loopholes.

Some of my colleagues may be wondering how I arrived at the funding figure of $1.4 billion for Amtrak for 2006. My answer is as follows: When President Bush submitted his budget request for fiscal year 2005, has asked for only $900 million for 2005. But in that same budget, the President recognized that funding should grow to $1.4 billion in 2006 and beyond. So, my proposal to bring Amtrak to $1.4 billion in 2006 is precisely the same number that President Bush had budgeted for Amtrak for 2006 just 1 year ago.

This is an important point because certain Senators might be of the misimpression that enacting President Bush's reform bill for Amtrak might result in actual budgetary savings. In fact, the administration has said that if Congress does enact its reform bill, it would be inclined to request far more funding for Amtrak than the railroad currently receives. In an interview with National Public Radio recently, Secretary Mineta said that the administration would be inclined to request between $1.5 and $2 billion for Amtrak. That funding range compares to the $1.2 billion we provided in fiscal year 2005. The budget resolution that we are currently debating, of course, includes none of that increase for a reformed Amtrak.

Senator Gregg, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, has not parroted the Bush administration's budget for all spending items. To his credit, Senator Gregg has set aside $50 billion for fiscal year 2006 for the cost of the on-going conflict in Iraq. It was the Bush administration's agenda to ignore the costs of the Iraq war and instead request this funding through a supplemental appropriations act. Senator Gregg, to his credit, said that his budget would not engage in such an indefensible policy. We know that we are going to have to pay for the ongoing conflict in Iraq in 2006 and Senator Gregg has appropriately set the money aside for that purpose.

This situation should be no different with Amtrak. The Bush administration's current budget proposes zero dollars for Amtrak's direct subsidy needs in 2006, and zero dollars for every year thereafter. Secretary Mineta, when traveling around the country, has said that the Bush administration will consider requesting adequate funding for Amtrak as part of a supplemental appropriations bill.

So, the choice before the Senate could not be clearer. If Senators really desire all Amtrak service to come to an immediate and grinding halt for lack of a Federal subsidy in 2006, vote against my amendment. But, if Senators want to pass a realistic budget that recognizes that, with or without reform legislation, continuing Amtrak service will require continued Federal subsidies in 2006, Senators should vote for my amendment.

The elimination of Amtrak's subsidy is not a recipe for a streamlined railroad. It is not a recipe for a more efficient railroad. It is a recipe for a dead railroad.

Across the Northeast corridor--the busiest urban transportation corridor in the Nation--the elimination of Amtrak's premier service would be a transportation disaster. Amtrak serves 13 million passengers each year over the Northeast corridor. The highways along this corridor--principally Interstate 95--and the runways along this corridor are already congested beyond words. Imagine for a moment the congestion that will result when an additional 13 million Americans are pushed onto those highways and runways. You are talking about both a transportation and economic disaster.

Elimination of Amtrak service would have disastrous results in both rural and urban America. There are over 120 communities all across the Nation that receive regularly scheduled Amtrak service but no air service whatsoever.

Several of these communities have seen their bus service eliminated as a result of a national shrinking of the Greyhound network. Amtrak's termination would result in dozens of these communities across the nation being isolated from the national transportation network.

Senators should not be fooled by the provision in the President's budget that calls for $360 million for commuter rail services in the Northeast corridor. These funds cannot be used as a matter of law to maintain Amtrak services on the Northeast corridor. They can only be used to maintain local commuter rail services like New Jersey Transit or the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority that operate over the Northeast corridor. And those funds can only be used as a matter of law to maintain those services and they can only be used in the event that Amtrak ceases operation. Not one penny of the $360 million requested for this purpose can be used to maintain Amtrak service for the 13 million passengers that depend on that service.

President Bush has proposed a series of so-called ``reforms'' for Amtrak that principally take the form of passing Amtrak's costs onto the States. These proposals come on top of other proposals in the President's budget, such as so-called reforms in the Medicaid Program that are designed to push additional costs of that program onto the States. As Senators are aware, the Nation's Governors traveled to Washington, DC, earlier this month. Many of those Governors visited their congressional delegations. I doubt that even one of them spoke favorably about the President's plans to push Amtrak's costs onto the States. But whether you agree with President Bush's Amtrak reform proposals or not, I would suggest that all Senators should support this amendment. There may be several disagreements over the merits of these so-called reform proposals. But one thing that is beyond question is that you cannot reform a dead railroad. And that is what the budget before us calls for--a dead, dead, dead railroad.

We should provide some stability and some peace of mind to the 25 million passengers who use Amtrak every year. We should provide some stability and peace of mind to the 20,000 Amtrak employees spread across the Nation, so that they will know that they will have employment at the end of the current year. We should provide some stability to Amtrak's finances so that the House and the Senate and the administration can have a meaningful debate over whether Amtrak should be reformed without the distraction of the near-term risk of the railroad lapsing into bankruptcy.

I encourage all Members to vote for my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as original cosponsors to those names that I have already read: Senators Kohl, Kennedy, Jeffords, and Lieberman.

Mr. President, I send to the desk the amendment to which I have already referred.

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

Mr. President, the following speakers have indicated an interest in making statements concerning their support for the amendment: Senators Clinton, Corzine, Carper, Schumer, and Dorgan.

I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.

I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from New York may consume.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York for her very lucid, cogent, and persuasive statement. And I thank her for her support of this amendment. I thank her very much.

Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, is prepared to speak on the amendment.

Mr. President, how much time does the distinguished Senator from North Dakota wish?

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his very timely, succinct, and persuasive statement. I thank him very much for his support of this amendment.

I believe Mr. Corzine wishes to have some time yielded. How much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the very able Senator and look forward to hearing his statement.

Mr. President, I hope the two managers would be willing to put the 1 o'clock beginning of the votes into a unanimous consent request so that we can depend on that hour.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of Senators Levin, Biden, and Chafee be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his statement. I yield such time as he may wish to have--I understand he wants about 10 minutes--to the very distinguished Senator, Mr. Lautenberg.

Madam President, what is the time that I have under the order?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my time may be extended to a total of 35 minutes and that the final 5 minutes be under the control of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, freedom is a fragile thing and never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. These words come from the lips of former President Ronald Reagan.

I rise today to discuss freedom, not the grandiose worldwide ``freedom talk'' one hears so much about. No. Not far-flung foreign policy goals, but, rather, my concern today is preserving our freedoms right in our own backyard at home.

Freedom, like a good garden, needs constant tending. One must watch for the worms in the wood. As Wendell Phillips, the abolitionist, orator, and the columnist, once said, ``eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.'' One must pay the price if one wants the blessing.

In a culture where sports metaphors are more common public parlance than historical analogies, our unique form of government, carefully restraining powers while protecting rights, presents a special challenge to maintain. The ``winning is everything'' philosophy so beloved by Americans may, without careful balance, obscure the goal of justice for all that must be the aim of a representative democracy. Demeaning minority views, characterizing opposition as obstructionist-- these are first steps down the dark alley of subjugating rights.

Majorities can prevail by numerical force. They do not need protection from minorities. Yet some would have us believe that minority voices threaten the larger public good in the case of Presidential judicial appointments. The opposite is true. It is minorities who are most in jeopardy without fairness from the Federal bench. I am talking about those who are in the minority. The persecuted, the disadvantaged, the poor, the downtrodden--these are the very citizens who need the strong protection of an unbiased legal system.

Appointees to the Federal bench should be scrutinized for traces of ideological rigidity or allegiance to political movements which could cloud impartial judgment. I for one do not favor activist judges of any stripe. I do not think the proper role for a judge is to make new law from the bench. My own preference is usually for strict constitutionalists. Conservative judges can hold activist views, just as can liberal judges. Such labels tell us very little. What we should strive for on the Federal bench is blind justice; that is, justice absent a political agenda.

Judicial appointments must never be a sure thing for the bench simply because they please the majority party, whether that majority is Democratic or Republican. Federal judges enjoy life tenure. Remember that. Federal judges enjoy life tenure, making decisions of huge importance to the lives and the livelihoods of our citizens. Are they accountable to anyone? No. They are accountable to no one, and no President can fire them. No President can say: Go home, you are sick today.

It is ridiculous to suggest that mere superiority of numbers in the Senate should alone guarantee confirmation to a Federal judgeship. Such a claim reduces the constitutional advice and consent function of the Senate to a pro forma rubberstamping of Presidential judicial appointments whenever the President's party controls the Senate. We are talking about a separate branch of the Federal Government. We are talking about a separate branch of the

Federal Government here, which wields tremendous power.

There is no God-given right to a seat on the Federal bench--no God- given right. There is no God-given right to a seat on the Federal bench. Should a minority have only the recourse of delay to defeat a judicial candidate of concern, that minority is well within its rights to filibuster. In fact, the minority would be derelict in their duty if they did not filibuster. There is no shortage of candidates for the Federal bench, no shortage. Another name can always be offered. Our aim should be to select excellent judges acceptable across a wide spectrum of political views.

There was a time in this country when men and women of opposite political parties could reason together to achieve such goals. There was a time when the concerns of honorable men and women serving in this Senate received the respect of fellow Members of the Senate, even though they were in the minority. Now I am very sorry to observe the Senate and the country are so polarized--so polarized, so politicized-- that nearly all dissent is discarded as obstructionist and politically motivated. ``Get out of the way'' is the cry. ``Get out of the way, get out of the way'' is the cry. Few take the time to consider other views.

If 41 Members of the Senate have objections to any judicial candidate, perhaps those objections should be heeded. Those are 41 Members. Perhaps that nominee should not serve. Forty-one Members, representing at the very least the people of 21 States, at the very, very least. Perhaps the minority is right. Perhaps the minority is right.

Senate service often reminds me of a game of ``red rover.'' We line up like two opposing camps and run as hard as we can at each other to score points. The talk show mavens keep the fires fanned, and through the din, honest discourse is nearly impossible. I worry. Oh, yes, I worry about a country whose major political pastime is not in finding compromise but, rather, in seeking conflict. The people are not well served. The courage to speak out about one's convictions is in scarcer and scarcer supply. Where, oh, where are the 21st century's profiles in courage?

President John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book ``Profiles in Courage'' lionized public servants who did not fear to stand alone, like Senator George Norris of Nebraska. From 1806 to 1917, there was no ability to invoke cloture in the Senate. Why 1806? Because that was when the rule was dropped from the Senate rules asking for the previous question, which would shut off debate. Therefore, it was really from 1789 to 1917 that there was no ability to invoke cloture in the Senate. But, in 1917, a cloture rule passed after a filibuster by 12 determined Senators who opposed U.S. intervention in World War I. That debate began when President Wilson asked Congress for the authority to arm U.S. merchant ships against Germany. The House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill, the ``Armed Ship'' bill, by a vote of 403 to 13. But a handful of determined Senators who opposed U.S. intervention in World War I, including Republican George W. Norris of Nebraska, launched a filibuster with far-reaching consequences.

George Norris's filibuster killed President Wilson's bill, though Wilson resurrected its contents by Executive order shortly after the filibuster ended.

I was born during the administration of Woodrow Wilson.

Nebraskans and, in essence, all States, the entire nation, were consumed with rage at George Norris because of public disclosure that Germany had promised Mexico several United States States if Mexico would align itself with Germany in war against the United States.

Well, there was a huge din, a huge outcry. The New York Times called Norris and others ``perverse and disloyal obstructionists.'' Does that recall anything of present-day vintage to Senators? The New York Times called Norris and others ``perverse and disloyal obstructionists'' and editorialized that:

. . . the odium of treasonable purpose will rest upon their

names forevermore. The Hartford Courant called them

``political tramps.'' The New York Sun called them ``a group

of moral perverts.'' The Providence Journal called their

action ``little short of treason'' and the Portland Free

Press said they should be ``driven from public life.''

Senator George W. Norris, the Nebraskan from the heart of America, suffered merciless abuse, vicious invective and public scorn, tarred by public sentiment, savaged by a strident press and the grip of a public filled with hate of Germany and the start of World War I. Yet he was and is an American hero. George Norris was ``fearful of the broad grant of authority'' that President Wilson sought to go to war, and resentful of the manner in which that authority was being ``steamrolled'' through the Congress.

Oh, how history repeats itself. How history repeats itself.

In Senator Norris's words:

I will not, even at the behest of a unanimous constituency,

violate my oath of office by voting in favor of a proposition

that means the surrender by Congress of its sole right to

declare war. . . . I am, however, so firmly convinced of the

righteousness of my course that I believe if the intelligence

and patriotic citizenship of the country can only have an

opportunity to hear both sides of the question, all the money

in Christendom and all the political machinery that wealth

can congregate will not be able to defeat the principle of

government for which our forefathers fought.

That was George Norris speaking.

When George Norris went home to explain why he had filibustered in the face of universal criticism, he sought an open meeting in Lincoln,

I thank the Chair. I believe Senator Carper is on his way. He wishes to have 5 minutes under the order following my remarks.

Mr. President, President Reagan was often fond of saying that ``there's nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside of a horse.'' So he surely would have been proud when, on November 18, 2004, during the closing days of the 108th Congress, the Senate passed a resolution introduced by our former colleague Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell that designated December 13, 2004, as ``National Day of the Horse.'' The resolution encouraged the people of the United States to be mindful of the contribution of horses to the economy, history, and character of our great Nation. The resolution, S. Res. 452, included a provision that stated ``horses are a vital part of the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion.''

Beginning in the 1950's, public awareness was raised about the cruel and inhumane manner in which wild horses and burros were being rounded up on public lands and subsequently sent to slaughter. Velma B. Johnston, later known as Wild Horse Annie, led an effort to protect this symbol of the American West that captured the imagination of school children across the country. In 1959, which was my first year in the Senate, Congress passed legislation I was pleased to support that prohibited the use of motorized vehicles to hunt wild horses and burros on all public lands. But the bill, which came to be known as the ``Wild Horse Annie Act,'' did not include a program for the management of wild horses and burros in the United States.

It was not until 1971 that Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The law, which I also supported, established as national policy that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, and death'' and that ``no wild free-roaming horses or burros or their remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products.''

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service were tasked with enforcement of the law on public lands. Unfortunately, several reports have documented the failure by the agencies to properly manage these animals. As a result, the BLM currently has approximately 22,000 wild horses and burros in holding facilities where their feeding and care use up nearly half of the agency's budget for wild horse and burro management.

The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act had been the law of the land until President Bush signed the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill on December 8, 2004. Included in the omnibus appropriations bill was a provision that would require the BLM to put up for public sale any wild horse taken off the range that is more than 10 years old and any horse that has been unsuccessfully offered for adoption three times. The BLM has estimated that about 8,400 mustangs out of 22,000 being kept on seven sanctuaries meet that criteria.

Surely there are actions that can be taken by the BLM to ensure the proper operation of the wild horse and burro program without resorting to the slaughter of these animals. Instead of taking the time to make the changes necessary to ensure the proper management of wild horses, this provision reaches for the butcher knife instead.

In response, my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Rep. Nick Joe Rahall, has introduced H.R. 297, a bill that would restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. I am pleased to join with him in his effort to overturn this egregious provision and reinstate Federal protections for one of the enduring symbols of the American frontier.

In closing, I quote from British poet Ronald Duncan's Ode to the Horse:

Where in this wide world can a man find nobility without

pride, friendship without envy or beauty without vanity?

Here: where grace is laced with muscle and strength by

gentleness confined. He serves without servility; he has

fought without enmity. There is nothing so powerful, nothing

less violent; there is nothing so quick, nothing less

patient. England's past has been bourne on his back. All our

history is his industry. We are his heirs; he our

inheritance. The Horse.

Mr. President, President Reagan was often fond of saying that ``there's nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside of a horse.'' So he surely would have been proud when, on November 18, 2004, during the closing days of the 108th Congress, the Senate passed a resolution introduced by our former colleague Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell that designated December 13, 2004, as ``National Day of the Horse.'' The resolution encouraged the people of the United States to be mindful of the contribution of horses to the economy, history, and character of our great Nation. The resolution, S. Res. 452, included a provision that stated ``horses are a vital part of the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion.''

Beginning in the 1950's, public awareness was raised about the cruel and inhumane manner in which wild horses and burros were being rounded up on public lands and subsequently sent to slaughter. Velma B. Johnston, later known as Wild Horse Annie, led an effort to protect this symbol of the American West that captured the imagination of school children across the country. In 1959, which was my first year in the Senate, Congress passed legislation I was pleased to support that prohibited the use of motorized vehicles to hunt wild horses and burros on all public lands. But the bill, which came to be known as the ``Wild Horse Annie Act,'' did not include a program for the management of wild horses and burros in the United States.

It was not until 1971 that Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The law, which I also supported, established as national policy that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, and death'' and that ``no wild free-roaming horses or burros or their remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products.''

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service were tasked with enforcement of the law on public lands. Unfortunately, several reports have documented the failure by the agencies to properly manage these animals. As a result, the BLM currently has approximately 22,000 wild horses and burros in holding facilities where their feeding and care use up nearly half of the agency's budget for wild horse and burro management.

The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act had been the law of the land until President Bush signed the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill on December 8, 2004. Included in the omnibus appropriations bill was a provision that would require the BLM to put up for public sale any wild horse taken off the range that is more than 10 years old and any horse that has been unsuccessfully offered for adoption three times. The BLM has estimated that about 8,400 mustangs out of 22,000 being kept on seven sanctuaries meet that criteria.

Surely there are actions that can be taken by the BLM to ensure the proper operation of the wild horse and burro program without resorting to the slaughter of these animals. Instead of taking the time to make the changes necessary to ensure the proper management of wild horses, this provision reaches for the butcher knife instead.

In response, my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Rep. Nick Joe Rahall, has introduced H.R. 297, a bill that would restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. I am pleased to join with him in his effort to overturn this egregious provision and reinstate Federal protections for one of the enduring symbols of the American frontier.

In closing, I quote from British poet Ronald Duncan's Ode to the Horse:

Where in this wide world can a man find nobility without

pride, friendship without envy or beauty without vanity?

Here: where grace is laced with muscle and strength by

gentleness confined. He serves without servility; he has

fought without enmity. There is nothing so powerful, nothing

less violent; there is nothing so quick, nothing less

patient. England's past has been bourne on his back. All our

history is his industry. We are his heirs; he our

inheritance. The Horse.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator McConnell and also my own leadership for the kindness in arranging for me to speak at this time.

(The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the introduction of S. 515 and S. 514 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Actually, the question will be very easy to answer. But for the moment, I must say to the very distinguished Senator that this is one Senator who is not at all surprised at what he found. I can remember when we had Mr. Bremer before the Senate Appropriations Committee to be heard. I asked him, after a while during which he delivered testimony and answered questions, if he would be able to remain or come back before the committee for some additional questions--meaning the same day--if the chairman should ask him to do so. His answer was, ``I am too busy.''

I came back to our caucus on that day, and I believe he came to the caucus at the same time. I told this to my caucus while Mr. Bremer was there. It was a shocking thing to me--an individual claiming he is too busy, and yet he is asking for quite a great amount of money to be appropriated, $2 billion.

I am not at all surprised at this. I believe as time goes on we will find more and more of these kinds of stories. I congratulate the distinguished Senator on the excellent work he is doing in bringing these things to light.

Now the question: Will the distinguished Senator add me as a cosponsor to his amendment?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, the great union leader, John L. Lewis, spoke of those who sup at labor's table and who have been sheltered in labor's house.

That image thrives in West Virginia, where children are raised to believe that the fruits of their labor ought to yield a decent wage and comfortable living. Many work long hours, concerned less about titles and honors than providing for their families in the present and securing their retirement in old age.

They devote themselves to their labors and take pride in their work and their employer. These workers are committed, hard-working individuals who contribute much and ask for nothing more than simple fairness. And so imagine how they are made to feel--the anguish, frustration, and betrayal they are made to feel--when they learn the pension they worked for, the health benefits they labored for, the security they toiled for, has vanished.

That is what is happening in West Virginia to an alarming degree. Special Metals, Horizon Natural Resources, Weirton Steel, Wheeling- Pitt, Kaiser Aluminum--all have filed for bankruptcy, endangering the health and pension benefits of workers and retirees.

I scold not those who have sought to protect their employees but those scoundrels who have used bankruptcy to abandon their obligations.

It is shattering to those workers and retirees affected. It cripples their faith in the moral values of an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. It's terrifying for retirees who cannot begin new careers. These independent, proud men and women fear becoming a burden to their children and grandchildren.

I understand how they are made to feel, and I seek to help them, as I always have sought to help them. I support the Rockefeller amendment, and I commend my colleague for his endeavors in this regard.

Mr. President, today I am, again, introducing legislation designed to fulfill an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and my region some 40 years ago. That promise, building and completing a network of highways through the Appalachian region is known today as the Appalachian Development Highway System or ADHS. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to have my legislation included in the reauthorization of the Federal-aid Highway Program, a program at the core of Federal infrastructure investment.

Over the course of the 108th Congress, we failed to reauthorize this program. That legislation should have been enacted into law prior to beginning fiscal year 2004. We are now more than one third of the way through fiscal year 2005 and the 109th Congress must initiate new bills to get the job done. I know I speak for many Senators in stressing the need to complete this job during this session of Congress. We must authorize a bill that addresses our deteriorating highways and bridges, and is not squeezed by the artificial funding ceiling that the administration wants.

The administration's own Conditions and Performance Report again reminds us that a great deal more investment in our infrastructure is essential to prevent the further deterioration of our nation's highways and bridges.

At a September 30, 2002 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Administrator Mary Peters testified that, despite the historic funding increase accomplished through TEA-21, congestion on our roads continues to worsen. Funding for highway infrastructure by all levels of government will have to increase by more than 65 percent or $42.2 billion per year to actually improve the condition of our Nation's highways. A funding increase of more than 17 percent or $11.3 billion is necessary to simply maintain the current poor condition of our highway network, where more than one in four of our Nation's bridges are classified as deficient.

At the end of 2002, I worked doggedly to ensure that the Senate prevailed in the conference with the House on the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 and rejected every penny of the $8.6 billion cut in highway funding proposed by President Bush. In 2003, I was pleased to join with Senators Bond and Reid, the respective chairman and ranking member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in sponsoring a bipartisan amendment to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 boosting funding for our Federal-aid Highway Program by several billion dollars. That amendment commanded 79 votes on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I am one of only two members still serving in the Congress that had the privilege of casting a vote in favor of establishing the Interstate Highway System. I did so as a Member of the other body back in 1956. Of equal if not greater importance to the transportation needs of my region, however,

were the findings of the first Appalachian Regional Commission in 1964, that while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system would bypass the Appalachian region because of the extremely high costs of building highways through Appalachia's rugged topography.

In 1965, the Congress adopted the Appalachian Regional Development Act that promised a network of modern highways to connect the Appalachian region to the rest of the Nation's highway network and, even more importantly, the rest of the Nation's economy. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my region of the country would have been left with a transportation network of dangerous, narrow, winding roads following the path of river valleys and stream beds between mountains.

One of the observations contained in Administrator Peters' testimony back in September of 2002 that especially caught my eye was her statement that ``the condition of higher-order roads, such as interstates, has improved considerably since 1993 while the condition on many lower-order roads has deteriorated.'' The pattern of road conditions mirrors the distribution of wealth in our country. The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. That observation becomes especially pertinent when one contemplates the challenge of completing the Appalachian Development Highway System.

We have virtually completed the construction of the Interstate Highway System and have moved on to other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region still wait for the Federal Government to make good on its 40-year-old promise to complete the ADHS. The system is still less than 80 percent complete. My home State of West Virginia is below the average for the entire Appalachian region with only 72 percent of its mileage complete and open to traffic.

Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to school; and there are still pregnant mothers, elderly citizens and others who lack road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable well-paying jobs because of poor roads. The entire status of the Appalachian Development Highway System is laid out in great detail in the Cost to Complete Report for 2002 completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is the most comprehensive report on the status of the Appalachian Development Highway System to date, and I commend the staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission for their hard work on this report. The last report was completed in 1997 just prior to Congressional consideration of TEA-21.

The enactment of TEA-21 signaled a new day in the advancement of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Through the work of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the administration, we took a great leap forward by authorizing direct contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to the States for the construction of the ADHS. Up until that point, funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System was limited to uncertain general fund appropriations. By providing the States of the Appalachian region with a predictable source of funds to complete ADHS segments, TEA-21 reinvigorated efforts to keep the promise made to the people of the Appalachian region.

This initiative has been a great success. States are making progress toward the completion of the system. Since the last Cost to Complete Report, 183 miles of the system have been opened to traffic and, the cost to complete the system has been reduced by roughly $1.7 billion in Federal funds.

I am pleased to report that the 13 States, to date, have succeeded in obligating just under 90 percent of the obligation authority that has been granted to them for the completion of the system. A 90-percent obligation rate compares quite favorably to some of the other transportation programs through which the States were granted multiple years to obligate their funds.

According to the ARC's Cost to Complete Report, the remaining Federal funds needed to complete the ADHS as the system was defined at the time that report was completed are now estimated to be $4.467 billion. When adjusted for inflation over the life of the next highway bill, using the standard inflation calculation for highway projects, a total of $5.04 billion will need to be authorized to complete the system. That is a lot of money and I believe that figure deserves some explanation.

The considerable cost of completing the last 20 percent of the ADHS is explained by the fact that the easiest segments of the system to build have already been built. Much of the costs associated with completing the most difficult unfinished segments are driven by the requirement to comply with other Federal laws, especially the laws requiring environmental mitigation measures when building new highways through rural areas. While the $5.04 billion figure may seem large to some of my colleagues, I would remind them that the last highway bill authorized more than $218 billion in Federal infrastructure investment over 6 years. It is my sincere hope and expectation that the next highway bill will authorize an even greater amount.

Of critical importance to this debate is the fact that the unfinished segments of the ADHS represent some of most dangerous and most deficient roadways in our entire Nation. Often lost in our debate over the necessity to invest in our highways is the issue of safety. The Federal Highway Administration has published reports indicating that substandard road conditions are a factor in 30 percent of all fatal highway accidents. I am quite certain that the percentage is a great deal higher in the Applachian region.

The Federal Highway Administration found that upgrading two-lane roads to four-lane divided highways decreased fatal car accidents by 71 percent and that the widening of traffic lanes has served to reduce fatalities by 21 percent. These are precisely the kind of road improvements that are funded through the ADHS. In my state, the largest segment of unfinished Appalachian Highway, if completed, will replace the second most dangerous segment of roadway in West Virginia. So, even those who would question the wisdom of completing these highways in the name of economic development should take a hard look at the fact that the people of rural Appalachia are taking their lives in their hands every day as they drive on dangerous roads. It is time for this Congress, in concert with the administration, to take the last great leap forward and authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. If we enact another six-year highway bill with sufficient funds to complete the system, we will finally pay the full costs of the ADHS some 45 years after the system was first promised to the people of my region. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Appalachian Development Highway System Completion Act,'' will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system. Importantly, it will guarantee that the states of the Appalachian Region do not pay a penalty, either through the distribution of minimum allocation funds, or the distribution of obligation limitation, for receiving sufficient funds to complete the Appalachian system.

I am very pleased that this administration has taken on the goal of completing the ADHS. In her letter accompanying the Cost to Complete Report, Administrator Peters said ``the completion of the ADHS is an important part of the mission of the Federal Highway Administration. We consider the accessibility, mobility and economic stimulation provided by the ADHS to be entirely consistent with the goals of our agency.'' Ms. Peters further stated that the Appalachian Regional Commission's 2002 Cost to Complete Report, ``provides a sound basis for apportioning future funding to complete the system.'' I thank Mary Peters and the entire Federal Highway Administration for their leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with Ms. Peters and her agency to ensure that this commitment is borne out in the transportation reauthorization legislation that is developed by the Congress.

Completion of a new highway bill will be an enormous task for this Congress--one that is now more than 2

years overdue. As I look back over the many years of my public career, one of the accomplishments of which I am most proud was my amendment providing an additional $8 billion in funding to break the logjam during the debate on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Another was my sponsorship of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner Amendment during the Senate debate of TEA-21 in 1998. That effort resulted in some $26 billion in funding being added to that bill and put us on a path to historic funding increases for our nation's highway infrastructure. I look forward again to working with my fellow Senators on completion of a bill that makes the necessary investments in our nation's highways, not just in the Appalachian region but across our entire country.

Mr. President, in recent years, the public profile of the National Guard has changed considerably. Known mainly for the contributions of citizen-soldiers to their States and communities, today the men and women of the National Guard are serving on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, enduring hardships in two of the world's most dangerous places.

In spite of the long deployments, far away from the small towns and big cities that these citizen-soldiers call home, the National Guard continues its work for our States and the American people. Today, I introduce legislation to support a most successful program that has helped the National Guard change the lives of tens of thousands of young Americans.

In 1991, I provided the first funding to establish a pilot program known as the National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Program. Over the years, this program has expanded in size and scope and is now known as the National Guard Youth Challenge Program.

The Youth Challenge Program gives high school dropouts the skills they need to turn their lives around. The advantage of using the National Guard to provide a structured environment for these students has been confirmed in studies by the Defense Science Board in 2000, the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Children in 2003, and the Department of Defense in 2004.

The program now operates 27 academies in 24 States, including West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, Michigan, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Over 5,000 cadets are now in training, and more than 58,000 have graduated from the program since 1993. Fully three-quarters of the Youth Challenge graduates have earned their high school diplomas in the program, but the program is at the mercy of shrinking state budgets.

In March 2004, the Department of Defense recommended an increase in Federal support for the program in order to prevent any more closures of Youth Challenge academies. The bill I introduce today would write that recommendation into law, phasing in the additional Federal support over 3 years.

My legislation also proposes to increase the authorization for the Youth Challenge program by $16.3 million, including $6.3 million for the proposed increase in the Federal share of the Youth Challenge Program's cost for Fiscal Year 2006.

My bill authorizes an additional $10 million to provide the first significant per-student increase in funding since the program began. For more than 12 years, the funding of the Youth Challenge Program has remained constant at $14,000 per student, per year. Imagine that. Think of that. At a time when the cost of education is growing by leaps and bounds, the Youth Challenge program has held the line on its budget for more than 12 years.

But such discipline means that there have been cutbacks in teachers, uniforms, and activities. The additional $10 million authorized in my bill would end these cutbacks, and may also be used to open new Youth Challenge academies, giving more at-risk youth a chance to change their lives.

Many of the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard serve our country in distant lands, but their commitment to their communities continues. The legislation I introduce today will strengthen that commitment by expanding the National Guard Youth Challenge Program for disadvantaged youth.

Mr. President, today I am, again, introducing legislation designed to fulfill an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and my region some 40 years ago. That promise, building and completing a network of highways through the Appalachian region is known today as the Appalachian Development Highway System or ADHS. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to have my legislation included in the reauthorization of the Federal-aid Highway Program, a program at the core of Federal infrastructure investment.

Over the course of the 108th Congress, we failed to reauthorize this program. That legislation should have been enacted into law prior to beginning fiscal year 2004. We are now more than one third of the way through fiscal year 2005 and the 109th Congress must initiate new bills to get the job done. I know I speak for many Senators in stressing the need to complete this job during this session of Congress. We must authorize a bill that addresses our deteriorating highways and bridges, and is not squeezed by the artificial funding ceiling that the administration wants.

The administration's own Conditions and Performance Report again reminds us that a great deal more investment in our infrastructure is essential to prevent the further deterioration of our nation's highways and bridges.

At a September 30, 2002 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Administrator Mary Peters testified that, despite the historic funding increase accomplished through TEA-21, congestion on our roads continues to worsen. Funding for highway infrastructure by all levels of government will have to increase by more than 65 percent or $42.2 billion per year to actually improve the condition of our Nation's highways. A funding increase of more than 17 percent or $11.3 billion is necessary to simply maintain the current poor condition of our highway network, where more than one in four of our Nation's bridges are classified as deficient.

At the end of 2002, I worked doggedly to ensure that the Senate prevailed in the conference with the House on the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 and rejected every penny of the $8.6 billion cut in highway funding proposed by President Bush. In 2003, I was pleased to join with Senators Bond and Reid, the respective chairman and ranking member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in sponsoring a bipartisan amendment to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 boosting funding for our Federal-aid Highway Program by several billion dollars. That amendment commanded 79 votes on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I am one of only two members still serving in the Congress that had the privilege of casting a vote in favor of establishing the Interstate Highway System. I did so as a Member of the other body back in 1956. Of equal if not greater importance to the transportation needs of my region, however,

were the findings of the first Appalachian Regional Commission in 1964, that while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system would bypass the Appalachian region because of the extremely high costs of building highways through Appalachia's rugged topography.

In 1965, the Congress adopted the Appalachian Regional Development Act that promised a network of modern highways to connect the Appalachian region to the rest of the Nation's highway network and, even more importantly, the rest of the Nation's economy. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my region of the country would have been left with a transportation network of dangerous, narrow, winding roads following the path of river valleys and stream beds between mountains.

One of the observations contained in Administrator Peters' testimony back in September of 2002 that especially caught my eye was her statement that ``the condition of higher-order roads, such as interstates, has improved considerably since 1993 while the condition on many lower-order roads has deteriorated.'' The pattern of road conditions mirrors the distribution of wealth in our country. The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. That observation becomes especially pertinent when one contemplates the challenge of completing the Appalachian Development Highway System.

We have virtually completed the construction of the Interstate Highway System and have moved on to other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region still wait for the Federal Government to make good on its 40-year-old promise to complete the ADHS. The system is still less than 80 percent complete. My home State of West Virginia is below the average for the entire Appalachian region with only 72 percent of its mileage complete and open to traffic.

Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to school; and there are still pregnant mothers, elderly citizens and others who lack road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable well-paying jobs because of poor roads. The entire status of the Appalachian Development Highway System is laid out in great detail in the Cost to Complete Report for 2002 completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is the most comprehensive report on the status of the Appalachian Development Highway System to date, and I commend the staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission for their hard work on this report. The last report was completed in 1997 just prior to Congressional consideration of TEA-21.

The enactment of TEA-21 signaled a new day in the advancement of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Through the work of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the administration, we took a great leap forward by authorizing direct contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to the States for the construction of the ADHS. Up until that point, funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System was limited to uncertain general fund appropriations. By providing the States of the Appalachian region with a predictable source of funds to complete ADHS segments, TEA-21 reinvigorated efforts to keep the promise made to the people of the Appalachian region.

This initiative has been a great success. States are making progress toward the completion of the system. Since the last Cost to Complete Report, 183 miles of the system have been opened to traffic and, the cost to complete the system has been reduced by roughly $1.7 billion in Federal funds.

I am pleased to report that the 13 States, to date, have succeeded in obligating just under 90 percent of the obligation authority that has been granted to them for the completion of the system. A 90-percent obligation rate compares quite favorably to some of the other transportation programs through which the States were granted multiple years to obligate their funds.

According to the ARC's Cost to Complete Report, the remaining Federal funds needed to complete the ADHS as the system was defined at the time that report was completed are now estimated to be $4.467 billion. When adjusted for inflation over the life of the next highway bill, using the standard inflation calculation for highway projects, a total of $5.04 billion will need to be authorized to complete the system. That is a lot of money and I believe that figure deserves some explanation.

The considerable cost of completing the last 20 percent of the ADHS is explained by the fact that the easiest segments of the system to build have already been built. Much of the costs associated with completing the most difficult unfinished segments are driven by the requirement to comply with other Federal laws, especially the laws requiring environmental mitigation measures when building new highways through rural areas. While the $5.04 billion figure may seem large to some of my colleagues, I would remind them that the last highway bill authorized more than $218 billion in Federal infrastructure investment over 6 years. It is my sincere hope and expectation that the next highway bill will authorize an even greater amount.

Of critical importance to this debate is the fact that the unfinished segments of the ADHS represent some of most dangerous and most deficient roadways in our entire Nation. Often lost in our debate over the necessity to invest in our highways is the issue of safety. The Federal Highway Administration has published reports indicating that substandard road conditions are a factor in 30 percent of all fatal highway accidents. I am quite certain that the percentage is a great deal higher in the Applachian region.

The Federal Highway Administration found that upgrading two-lane roads to four-lane divided highways decreased fatal car accidents by 71 percent and that the widening of traffic lanes has served to reduce fatalities by 21 percent. These are precisely the kind of road improvements that are funded through the ADHS. In my state, the largest segment of unfinished Appalachian Highway, if completed, will replace the second most dangerous segment of roadway in West Virginia. So, even those who would question the wisdom of completing these highways in the name of economic development should take a hard look at the fact that the people of rural Appalachia are taking their lives in their hands every day as they drive on dangerous roads. It is time for this Congress, in concert with the administration, to take the last great leap forward and authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. If we enact another six-year highway bill with sufficient funds to complete the system, we will finally pay the full costs of the ADHS some 45 years after the system was first promised to the people of my region. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Appalachian Development Highway System Completion Act,'' will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system. Importantly, it will guarantee that the states of the Appalachian Region do not pay a penalty, either through the distribution of minimum allocation funds, or the distribution of obligation limitation, for receiving sufficient funds to complete the Appalachian system.

I am very pleased that this administration has taken on the goal of completing the ADHS. In her letter accompanying the Cost to Complete Report, Administrator Peters said ``the completion of the ADHS is an important part of the mission of the Federal Highway Administration. We consider the accessibility, mobility and economic stimulation provided by the ADHS to be entirely consistent with the goals of our agency.'' Ms. Peters further stated that the Appalachian Regional Commission's 2002 Cost to Complete Report, ``provides a sound basis for apportioning future funding to complete the system.'' I thank Mary Peters and the entire Federal Highway Administration for their leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with Ms. Peters and her agency to ensure that this commitment is borne out in the transportation reauthorization legislation that is developed by the Congress.

Completion of a new highway bill will be an enormous task for this Congress--one that is now more than 2

years overdue. As I look back over the many years of my public career, one of the accomplishments of which I am most proud was my amendment providing an additional $8 billion in funding to break the logjam during the debate on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Another was my sponsorship of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner Amendment during the Senate debate of TEA-21 in 1998. That effort resulted in some $26 billion in funding being added to that bill and put us on a path to historic funding increases for our nation's highway infrastructure. I look forward again to working with my fellow Senators on completion of a bill that makes the necessary investments in our nation's highways, not just in the Appalachian region but across our entire country.

Mr. President, in recent years, the public profile of the National Guard has changed considerably. Known mainly for the contributions of citizen-soldiers to their States and communities, today the men and women of the National Guard are serving on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, enduring hardships in two of the world's most dangerous places.

In spite of the long deployments, far away from the small towns and big cities that these citizen-soldiers call home, the National Guard continues its work for our States and the American people. Today, I introduce legislation to support a most successful program that has helped the National Guard change the lives of tens of thousands of young Americans.

In 1991, I provided the first funding to establish a pilot program known as the National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Program. Over the years, this program has expanded in size and scope and is now known as the National Guard Youth Challenge Program.

The Youth Challenge Program gives high school dropouts the skills they need to turn their lives around. The advantage of using the National Guard to provide a structured environment for these students has been confirmed in studies by the Defense Science Board in 2000, the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Children in 2003, and the Department of Defense in 2004.

The program now operates 27 academies in 24 States, including West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, Michigan, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Over 5,000 cadets are now in training, and more than 58,000 have graduated from the program since 1993. Fully three-quarters of the Youth Challenge graduates have earned their high school diplomas in the program, but the program is at the mercy of shrinking state budgets.

In March 2004, the Department of Defense recommended an increase in Federal support for the program in order to prevent any more closures of Youth Challenge academies. The bill I introduce today would write that recommendation into law, phasing in the additional Federal support over 3 years.

My legislation also proposes to increase the authorization for the Youth Challenge program by $16.3 million, including $6.3 million for the proposed increase in the Federal share of the Youth Challenge Program's cost for Fiscal Year 2006.

My bill authorizes an additional $10 million to provide the first significant per-student increase in funding since the program began. For more than 12 years, the funding of the Youth Challenge Program has remained constant at $14,000 per student, per year. Imagine that. Think of that. At a time when the cost of education is growing by leaps and bounds, the Youth Challenge program has held the line on its budget for more than 12 years.

But such discipline means that there have been cutbacks in teachers, uniforms, and activities. The additional $10 million authorized in my bill would end these cutbacks, and may also be used to open new Youth Challenge academies, giving more at-risk youth a chance to change their lives.

Many of the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard serve our country in distant lands, but their commitment to their communities continues. The legislation I introduce today will strengthen that commitment by expanding the National Guard Youth Challenge Program for disadvantaged youth.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.