Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, who is also the Democratic whip here in the Senate.

Tennyson in Ulysses says:

I am a part of all that I have met.

Mr. President, I don't know how long the great God of the universe will spare me. But however long it may be, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, will always be a part of me.

Mr. President, the great State of West Virginia has produced numerous individuals who have dedicated their lives to the service of the Nation. These sons and daughters of West Virginia have contributed to the betterment of their communities, their State and their country. One such public servant is Paul L. Galis, who for 35 years has served admirably in the Federal Aviation Administration, and has contributed to the development of an aviation system unsurpassed in the world.

Mr. Galis retires in July as the Deputy Associate Administrator for Airports in FAA. In this position as well as his previous position of Director of the Office of Airport Planning and Program, Mr. Galis has overseen the planning and development of over 3,000 airports in the national plan for airports. This has been no small task and Mr. Galis has served with distinction.

All of us in the State of West Virginia salute Mr. Galis for his career and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Our country is better for the work he has done and the example of public service he has provided. His able leadership and steady hand will be missed.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I do not have a question except as to what the status of the legislation is at this point.

I would.

Mr. President, before we pat ourselves on the back, pop the champagne bottles, and fan out across America to tell seniors that their prescription drug worries are now an issue of the past, let's take a closer look at the Medicare proposal before us.

The more I read through this Medicare bill, the more I become convinced that history is once more repeating itself. I can recall a painful experience during my majority leadership when an outraged citizenry, composed mostly of seniors, forced Congress to repeal the ill-fated Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act back in 1989. The year before, Congress was engaged in a Medicare debate eerily similar to the one we are having at this time. A bipartisan compromise was reached to make the most sweeping change in Medicare's then 23 years of existence.

Congress agreed to two key changes to the Medicare program--a prescription drug benefit and a ``stop-loss'' protection from catastrophic medical bills. Facing deficits as we do today, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided that beneficiaries should pay for the new benefits themselves, with the wealthiest paying the most. The new law included a complicated benefit that was too difficult to explain and a lengthy delay in the benefit's taking effect. In the end, seniors saw the bill, were confused as to what they are were getting in exchange, and wanted no part of it. Hence, it was repealed in the next session. We are poised to make the same mistake again.

I foresee a great deal of confusion and dismay occurring around kitchen tables and in corporate boardrooms across America when people actually start to read beyond the newspaper headlines and see the fine print of this plan 3 years from now. Seniors may not know whether to laugh or weep. And if no one signs up for this new Medicare plan, it will fail and fail miserably.

What incentive do seniors have to sign up for a plan that is full of coverage holes, up-front costs, and confusing paperwork? What incentive do insurance companies have to enter an untried, untested, drug-only insurance market? How can an insurance company make a plan work when almost every single participating insuree makes a claim?

Many of the 335,000 Medicare beneficiaries in West Virginia are struggling just to make ends meet and pay for the prescription medicines that sustain them. In West Virginia, the average annual income of a Medicare beneficiary is a mere $10,800.

I have to wonder, what does this prescription drug proposal mean to a 75-year-old widow from West Virginia who lives off her late husband's pension of $21,000 a year, but has $5,700 per year out-of-pocket drug costs to treat her diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and elevated cholesterol levels?

To take advantage of this new, so-called drug benefit, she would have to spend at least $420 in yearly premiums, a $275 deductible, and then she and Medicare would each pay 50 percent of her drug costs until the costs reach $4,500, after which she would pay the remainder of her $5,700 medical bill--about another $1,000 in other words. And she could very well have to spend more given that the deductible, premiums, and copay amount are not defined in this legislation. Does this sound confusing? I am confused just trying to describe it.

Ultimately, Medicare would pay about a mere $2,000 of this poor West Virginia widow's $5,700 drug costs, a benefit of only about 35 percent. What a flimsy benefit. It doesn't even come close to the approximately 70 percent prescription drug subsidy Members of Congress receive under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. We wouldn't dare design health benefits for ourselves in this way.

Under this legislation, seniors in similar situations in West Virginia and across the Nation would still be forced to resort to pill splitting and desperately foregoing the medicines their doctors have prescribed.

Let's slow down and take a better look at this legislation. President Bush says he wants the Senate to pass a bill before the July recess, and so we're now engaged in a headlong rush to do just that. Members have been sitting around for days just waiting for Congressional Budget Office staff, who have been working nonstop around the clock to produce, and in some cases, reproduce cost estimates that fall within the too small budget parameters that we have required for passage. This is no way to legislate on a program of such great importance to the citizens of this country. We need more time to explain this plan to our elderly citizens. Don't we need their feedback?

I doubt that our Nation's seniors will be excited about accepting a mere half-loaf benefit. Seniors will probably want no part of it. Just like they did almost 15 years ago, when I was majority leader they may revolt, and Members of Congress could be back here scratching their heads and scrambling to find a solution and save their seats.

Senator Durbin and I and other Senators have offered a substitute Medicare amendment that actually makes sense, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. The Medicare benefit under the Durbin amendment has no deductible, a guaranteed $420 yearly premium, no gaps in coverage, and a catastrophic cap on drug spending at $5,000. The Durbin amendment would also allow seniors to receive their prescription drug benefit through the traditional Medicare program or through an available private plan if they desire. Seniors would receive their prescription drug benefit as soon as possible, rather than having to wait until 2006, after the next elections. Finally, the Durbin amendment would allow the Federal Government to use the leveraging power of millions of seniors to negotiate lower prices for prescription medications.

The same widow in West Virginia with $5,700 in drug costs, would only have to spend about $2,000 under the Durbin amendment plan versus the almost $4,000 she would have to pay under the Grassley-Baucus Medicare bill before us today. I think it is quite obvious which Medicare plan the elderly citizens from West Virginia would choose.

This legislation, as it stands, also does nothing to address the high cost of prescription drugs. We should do better for our seniors. And we can do better. I believe that we can improve this legislation through the adoption of the Durbin amendment. Let's not shortchange our seniors. They deserve our very best efforts.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the news is just on the wires that six British troops have been killed near Basra in Iraq. Every day--every day--brings us sad tidings of American and/or Allied troops being killed in Iraq.

How much longer--how much longer, Mr. President--are our American fighting men and women going to have to remain in harm's way in a foreign land? How much longer are our National guardsmen and women and reservists going to have to be away from home?

The President announced not too long ago that major hostilities had ended. Were we told by this administration how long our military forces will be required to run these terrible risks that daily confront them in this biblical land of Mesopotamia, land between the two great rivers? I often asked the question, before the war began, What is going to be the cost? What is the plan? What is the administration's plan? What about the morning after the war ends?

No announcement has been made at this point that the war has ended, only that major hostilities no longer exist. And then there were public disagreements as to how many Americans would be needed in Iraq to bring about a safe and secure society.

I try to put myself in the place of a father or a husband of one of our military personnel in Iraq. I try to imagine the pain and the suffering on the part of those who wait--who wait--at home for the return of their loved ones.

Last fall, the White House released a national security strategy that called for an end to the doctrines of deterrence and containment that have been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than half a century.

This new national security strategy is based upon preemptive war-- something unheard of in the past experiences, practices, and policies of our Nation--preemptive war against those who might threaten our security.

Such a strategy of striking first against possible dangers is heavily reliant upon interpretation of accurate and timely intelligence. If we are going to hit first, based on perceived dangers, the perceptions had better be accurate. If our intelligence is faulty, we may launch preemptive wars against countries that do not pose a real threat against us or we may overlook countries that do pose real threats to our security, allowing us no chance to pursue diplomatic solutions to stop a crisis before it escalates to war. In either case, lives could be needlessly lost. In other words, we had better be certain that we can discern the imminent threats from the false alarms.

Just 96 days ago, as of June 24, President Bush announced that he had initiated a war to ``disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.'' The President told the world:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly--yet, our

purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our

friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw

regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass

[destruction].

The President has since announced that major combat operations concluded on May 1. He said:

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle

of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

Since then, Mr. President, the United States has been recognized by the international community as the occupying power in Iraq. And yet we have not found any evidence that would confirm the officially stated reason that our country was sent to war; namely, that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction constituted a grave threat to the United States--a grave threat to the United States.

We have heard a lot about revisionist history from the White House of late in answer to those who question whether there was ever a real threat from Iraq. But it is the President who appears to me to be intent on revising history.

There is an abundance of clear and unmistakable evidence that the administration sought to portray Iraq as a direct, deadly, and imminent threat to the American people. But there is a great difference between the handpicked intelligence that was presented by the administration to Congress and the American people when compared against what we have actually discovered in Iraq. This Congress and the American people, who sent us here, are entitled to an explanation from this administration.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush said in his State of the Union Address:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein

recently sought significant quantities of uranium from

Africa.

Yet, according to news reports, the CIA knew this claim was false as early as March 2002. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency has since discredited this allegation.

On February 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council:

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a

stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons

agents. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.

But, the truth is, to date we have not found any of this material, nor those thousands of rockets loaded with chemical weapons.

On February 8, President Bush told the Nation:

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently

authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons--

the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

Well, I say to my fellow Senators, we are all relieved that such weapons were not used, but it has not yet been explained why the Iraqi Army did not use them. Did the Iraqi Army flee their positions before chemical weapons could be used? If so, why were the weapons not left behind? Or is it that the army was never issued chemical weapons?

We need answers. We need answers to these and other such questions.

On March 16, the Sunday before the war began, in an interview with Tim Russert, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqis want ``to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.'' Vice President Cheney said the Iraqis want ``to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.''

He added:

. . . the vast majority of them would turn Saddam Hussein

in in a minute if, in fact, they thought they could do so

safely.

But, today Iraqi cities remain in disorder. Our troops are under attack as well as our allies. Our occupation government lives and works in fortified compounds, and we are still trying to determine the fate of the ousted murderous dictator.

On March 30, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, during the height of the war, said of the search for weapons of mass destruction:

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit

and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.

Well, Mr. President, Baghdad fell to our troops on April 9 and Tikrit on April 14, and the intelligence about which Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke has not led us to any weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not intelligence reports were bent, stretched, or massaged to make Iraq look like an imminent threat to the United States, it is clear that the administration's rhetoric played upon the well-founded fears of the American public about future acts of terrorism. But upon close examination, many of these statements have nothing to do with intelligence because they are, at root, just sound bites based on conjecture. They are designed to prey upon public fear.

The face of Osama bin Laden morphed into that of Saddam Hussein. President Bush carefully blurred these images in his State of the Union Address. Listen to this quote from the President's State of the Union Address:

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other

plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one

vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to

bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

Judging by this speech, not only is the President confusing al-Qaida and Iraq, but he also appears to give a vote of no confidence to our homeland security efforts. Isn't the White House the brains behind the Department of Homeland Security? Isn't the administration supposed to be stopping those vials, canisters, and crates from entering our country rather than trying to scare our fellow citizens half to death about them?

Not only did the administration warn about more hijackers carrying deadly chemicals, the White House even went so far as to suggest that the time it would take for U.N. inspectors to find solid smoking gun evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons would put the United States at greater risk of nuclear attack from Iraq.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying on September 9, 2002, by the Los Angeles Times:

We don't want the ``smoking gun'' to be a mushroom cloud.

``Threat by Iraq Grows,'' this is the headline that was in the Los Angeles Times.

Well, talk about hype. Mushroom clouds? Where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence for that hype? There isn't any.

On September 26, 2002, just 2 weeks before Congress voted on the resolution to allow the President to invade Iraq and 6 weeks before the midterm elections, President Bush himself built the case that Iraq was plotting to attack the United States.

After meeting with members of Congress on that date, the President said:

The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our

country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and

chemical weapons. . . . The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb,

and with fissile material, could build one within a year.

Well, these are the President's words. He said that Saddam Hussein is seeking a nuclear bomb. Have we found any evidence to date of this chilling allegation? No.

But President Bush continued on that autumn day:

The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month

and from year to year. To ignore these threats is to

encourage them. And when they have fully materialized, it may

be too late to protect ourselves and our friends and our

allies. By then, the Iraqi dictator would have the means to

terrorize and dominate the region. Each passing day could be

the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX--nerve

gas--or some day a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally.

Yet, 7 weeks after declaring victory in the war against Iraq, we have seen nary a shred of evidence to support the President's claims of grave, dangerous chemical weapons, links to al-Qaida, or nuclear weapons.

Just days before a vote on a resolution that handed the President unprecedented war powers, President Bush stepped up the scare tactics. On October 7, just 4 days before the October vote in the Senate on the war resolution, the President had this to say:

We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share

a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that

Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a

decade.

He continued:

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in

bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. . . . Alliance with

terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America

without leaving any fingerprints.

President Bush also elaborated on claims of Iraq's nuclear program when he said:

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its

nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous

meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his

``nuclear mujahideen''--his nuclear holy warriors. . . . If

the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount

of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single

softball, he could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

Wasn't that enough to keep you awake, Senators? This is the kind of pumped-up intelligence and outrageous rhetoric that was given to the American people to justify a war with Iraq. This is the same kind of hyped evidence that was given to Congress to sway its vote for war on October 11, 2002.

We hear some voices saying, well, why should we care? After all, the United States won the war, didn't it? Saddam Hussein is no more. Iraq is no longer a threat. He is either dead or on the run, so what does it matter if reality does not reveal the same grim picture that was so carefully painted before the war. So what. So what if the menacing characterizations that conjured up visions of mushroom clouds and American cities threatened with deadly germs and chemicals were overdone. So what.

Our sons and daughters who serve in uniform answered the call to duty. They were sent to the hot sands of the Middle East to fight in a war that has already cost the lives of 194 Americans to this moment, thousands of innocent civilians, and unknown numbers of Iraqi soldiers. Our troops are still at risk. Hardly a day goes by that there is not another attack on the troops who are trying to restore order to a country teetering on the brink of anarchy. When are they coming home?

The President told the American people we were compelled to go to war to secure our country from a grave threat. Are we any safer today than we were on March 18, 2003? Our Nation has been committed to rebuilding a country ravaged by war and tyranny, and the cost of that task is being paid for in blood and in treasure every day.

It is in the compelling national interest to examine what we were told about the threat from Iraq. This is not revisionist history. These words are plain English words that I have quoted. It is in the compelling national interest to know if the intelligence was faulty. It is in the compelling national interest to know if the intelligence was distorted. It is in the national interest to know if the intelligence was manipulated.

Mr. President, Congress must face this issue squarely. Congress should begin immediately an investigation into the intelligence that was presented to the American people about the prewar estimates of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the way in which that intelligence might have been misused. This is no time for a timid, tippy-toe Congress. Congress has a responsibility to act in the national interest and to protect the American people, and we must get to the bottom of this matter.

Although some timorous steps have been taken in the past few days to begin a review of this intelligence--I must watch my words carefully, for I may be tempted to use the word ``investigation'' or ``inquiry'' to describe this review, and those are terms which I am told are not supposed to be used--the proposed measures appear to fall short of what the situation requires. We are already shading our terms about how to describe the proposed review of intelligence: cherry-picking words to give the American people the impression that the Government is fully in control of the situation, and that there is no reason to ask tough questions. This is the same problem that got us into this controversy about slanted intelligence reports. Word games, lots and lots of word games.

This is no game. For the first time in our history, the United States has gone to war because of intelligence reports claiming that a country posed a threat to our Nation. Congress should not be content to use standard operating procedures to look into this extraordinary matter.

We should accept no substitute for a full, bipartisan investigation by Congress into the issue of our prewar intelligence on the threat from Iraq and the use of that intelligence.

The purpose of such an investigation is not to play preelection year politics, nor is it to engage in what some might call ``revisionist history.'' Rather, it is to get at the truth. The longer questions are allowed to fester about what our intelligence knew about Iraq, and when our intelligence knew it, the greater the risk that American people, whom we are elected to serve, will lose confidence in our Government.

This looming crisis of trust is not limited to the public. Many of my colleagues were willing to trust the administration and vote to authorize war against Iraq. Many Members of this body trusted so much that they gave the President sweeping authority to commence war. As President Reagan famously said, ``Trust, but verify.'' Despite my opposition, the Senate voted to blindly trust the President with unprecedented--unprecedented, unprecedented--power to declare war. Shame. While the reconstruction continues, so do the questions, and it is time to verify.

I have served the people of West Virginia in Congress for half a century. I have witnessed deceit and scandal, coverup and aftermath. I have seen from both parties Presidents who once enjoyed great popularity among the people leave office in disgrace because they misled the American people. I say to this administration: Do not circle the wagons. Do not discourage the seeking of truth in these matters.

The American people have questions that need to be answered about why we went to war with Iraq. To attempt to deny the relevance of these questions is to trivialize the people's trust and confidence.

The business of intelligence is secretive by necessity, but our Government is open by design. We must be straight with the American people. Congress has the obligation to investigate the use of intelligence information by the administration in the open so that the American people can see that those who exercise power, especially the awesome power of preemptive war, must be held accountable. We must not go down the road of coverup. That is the road to ruin.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his courtesy in arranging for me to speak briefly. When I say ``briefly,'' that means perhaps an hour.

Yes, I yield.

I thank the majority leader.

Mr. President, Cicero was asked which of Demosthenes' speeches he most admired. Cicero's answer was: The longest. By the way, Demosthenes committed suicide. He carried some poison in a bracelet and he committed suicide. While I admire Demosthenes, I do not hope to follow his course in that regard.

The greatest oration that was ever delivered was the Oration on the Crown by Demosthenes. In that oration, he asked the question: Who deceives the State? He answered his own question. He who does not speak what he thinks.

God, give us men!

A time like this demands strong minds,

great hearts, true faith, and ready hands.

Men whom the lusts of office do not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who possess opinions and a will;

Men who have honor; men who will not lie.

Men who can stand before the demagogue

And brave his treacherous flatteries without winking.

Tall men, sun-crowned;

Who live above the fog,

In public duty and in private thinking.

For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds,

It's large professions and its little deeds, mingles in

selfish strife,

Lo! Freedom weeps!

Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps.

God, give us men.

Men who serve not for selfish booty;

But real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty.

Men of dependable character;

Men of sterling worth;

Then wrongs will be redressed, and right will rule the earth.

God, give us Men!

Mr. President, those lines by J. G. Holland call my reflections to a man who served in the Senate with me a good many years ago. For 38 years, Russell B. Long was a giant among the giants of the U.S. Senate. Although not a large man, his mere presence on the Senate floor was overpowering. His accomplishments were enormous, and I am confident in saying that his legacy will prove to be long lasting. He was a Senator's Senator.

He sat here in this row of seats where I now stand. Mr. Mansfield sat in the chair at the desk just in front of me. The greatest Senator of all, in my public career, was another Southerner whose name was Richard Brevard Russell, and he sat at the seat which I now have the honor to fill. At the desk behind me was Russell B. Long.

He was a man of powerful intellect. He was a walking history blessed with common sense and a sharp, clear mind. He could keep one entertained for hours with his down-home stories, his folksy humor, and memories of his remarkable and controversial family.

His father, Huey P. Long, was called the Kingfish in Louisiana. His father was the legendary populist Governor and Senator from Louisiana, Huey Long. Russell's self-effacing mother, Rose, who Russell Long said was the ``nearest thing I knew to an angel''--now that is putting it right. ``The nearest thing I knew to an angel.'' That was Russell Long's way of referring to his mother.

His mother served briefly in the U.S. Senate following the assassination of her husband. So here you have the husband, the wife, and the son all serving in the U.S. Senate at different times, of course.

Born in Shreveport, LA, in 1918, Russell B. Long received his undergraduate and law degrees from Louisiana State University. He served as a naval officer during World War II and practiced law after the war.

On November 2, 1948, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. I was in the West Virginia House of Delegates at that time. So Russell Long was elected to the U.S. Senate 1 day before his 30th birthday, making him the sixth person to be elected to the Senate under the age of 30. When he retired from the Senate in 1986, he had served longer than all but three other Senators in history at that time.

His love for this institution and his respect for this institution's traditions were always evident. He opposed television coverage in the U.S. Senate. He and I were both together in feeling that way about it at that particular time. We both opposed television coverage in the Senate at that point.

He opposed the efforts to limit Senate filibusters. I opposed them with him. I joined in filibusters with him. And I today oppose efforts to eliminate the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, and I always will oppose those efforts.

He did so, meaning he opposed the elimination of the filibuster and any efforts to eliminate it, because he cared so much about preserving the unique role of the U.S. Senate in American Government and American society.

During his tenure in the Senate, Russell Long served on a number of important committees, including the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the Banking and Currency Committee, and the Armed Services Committee.

In 1965, his Democratic colleagues elected him--and I was here at that time to cast my vote for him--to serve as the Senate Democratic whip, the post he held until 1969. I was the secretary of the Democratic conference at that particular time, and I believe I sat on the back row over here.

It was on January 10, 1966, that another legend was born, and that was the day that Senator Long became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a position he held for 15 years, the longest continuous service in the history of that committee. As chairman of this powerful Senate committee, Senator Long displayed such a command of the subject matter and demonstrated such skillful management abilities that during floor debates Senators would line up at his desk seeking his encyclopedic memory and knowledge about complicated tax provisions. In fact, on most of the landmark tax and trade legislation during that time one can see the imprint of this remarkable Senator, Russell Long.

His was a powerful voice on health care finance and Social Security. His genius fathered ESOP, the employee stock ownership plan concept, which enabled the workers and management at Weirton Steel in Weirton, WV, to keep the plant from closing in 1982. Russell Long went with me, and with the late Senator Jennings Randolph, my colleague at the time, to Weirton Steel and talked with the employers and employees, the people, the citizens, about the ESOP plan. That plan was applied and it preserved the jobs of 8,500 employees.

Russell Long's legislative achievements included the 1972 and 1976 Federal revenue sharing laws and the 1969 and 1976 tax reform laws. I wish he were here today. Indeed, his work on the Nation's tax laws continued throughout his years in the Senate. In 1986, his last year in this Chamber, he helped to write a major simplification of income tax law.

President Jimmy Carter liked to say that he was elected President and came to Washington to run the country but that when he got here, he discovered that Russell Long was already running it.

Senator Long's colleague from Louisiana at that time, Senator Bennett Johnson, used to point out that President Carter was probably exaggerating but not by much.

Russell Long's success as a Senator is largely attributable to his skills as a debater and speaker, and his skills as a technician and craftsman in the writing of tax laws. These are skills which he likely inherited from his dynamic father. Those skills included his formidable ability as one of the Senate's best negotiators.

President John F. Kennedy once told him:

You traded me a biscuit for a barrel of flour and I didn't

even get a biscuit.

Following the Republican landslide of 1980 in which Ronald Reagan was elected President and the Republican Party gained the majority in the Senate, Senator Howard Baker, who had become the new Senate majority leader, telephoned Senator Robert Dole to congratulate Senator Dole on his new role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The story goes that Senator Dole responded:

Howard, that is great, but who is going to tell Russell

Long?

I enjoy that story. It demonstrates both the power and the respect that Senator Russell Long commanded as a U.S. Senator and as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. No wonder the Wall Street Journal once referred to Russell Long as the fourth branch of Government. Journalists, as well as Presidents and Senators, revered and enjoyed this colorful man, and brilliant Senator. During his 38 years in the Senate, Russell B. Long truly became an institution within this institution.

I missed Russell Long when he left the Senate. Erma and I missed his lovely wife Carolyn. I called Carolyn a few minutes ago to speak with her about her late husband Russell Long. I told her I was going to have a few words to say about Russell, and I asked her to listen in if she liked.

I close this short statement about Russell Long with a poem by Thomas Moore, that great Irishman. The title of the poem is ``The Light of Other Days.''

I dedicate these words by Thomas Moore to Carolyn, and in so doing, of course, I think about my own service in this Chamber with Russell Long.

Oft, in the stilly night,

Ere slumber's chain as bound me,

Fond memory brings the light

Of other days around me;

The smiles, the tears,

Of boyhood's years,

The words of love then spoken;

The ayes that shone,

Now dimm'd and gone,

The cheerful hearts now broken.

Thus, in the stilly night,

Ere slumber's chain has bound me,

Sad memory brings the light

Of other days around me.

When I remember all

The friends, so link'd together,

I've seen around me fall

Like leaves in wintry weather.

I feel like one

Who treads alone

Some banquet-hall deserted,

Whose lights are fled,

Whose garland's dead,

And all but he departed.

Thus, in the stilly night,

Ere slumber's chain has bound me,

Sad Memory brings the light

Of other days around me.

Mr. President, today is the 140th birthday of West Virginia:

West Virginia, how I love you!

Every streamlet, shrub and stone,

Even the clouds that flit above you

Always seem to be my own.

Your steep hillsides clad in grandeur,

Always rugged, bold and free,

Sing with ever swelling chorus:

Montani, Semper, Liberi!

Always free! The little streamlets,

As they glide and race along,

Join their music to the anthem

And the zephyrs swell the song.

Always free! The mountain torrent

In its haste to reach the sea,

Shouts its challenge to the hillsides

And the echo answers ``FREE!''

Always free! Repeats the river

In a deeper, fuller tone

And the West wind in the treetops

Adds a chorus all its own.

Always Free! The crashing thunder,

Madly flung from hill to hill,

In a wild reverberation

Makes our hearts with rapture fill.

Always free! The Bob White whistles

And the whippoorwill replies,

Always free! The robin twitters

As the sunset gilds the skies.

Perched upon the tallest timber,

Far above the sheltered lea,

There the eagle screams defiance

To a hostile world: ``I'm free!''

And two million happy people,

Hearts attuned in holy glee,

Add the hallelujah chorus:

``Mountaineers are always free!''

It is that time of year again.

It is that time when the flowers are in full bloom and birds are chirping the sweetest and the loudest. It is that time when you feel most like breathing the clean, fresh air blowing in from the Appalachian mountains. The time of year when you feel most like taking your loved one by the hand and strolling, arm in arm, through your favorite park knowing that all is right with the world--and all is right with the world because it is West Virginia Day!

June 20 is West Virginia Day. I am celebrating this glorious day. It was 140 years ago that West Virginia became a State. It was on June 20, 1863, the Reverend J.T. McLure offered the State's inaugural prayer. Referring to the fact that the State was created in the middle of the American Civil War, he prayed:

We pray Thee, almighty God, that this State, born amidst

tears and blood and fire and desolation, may long be

preserved and from its little beginning may grow to be a

might and a power that shall make those who come after us

look upon it with joy and gladness and pride of heart.

I am pleased and proud to say, 140 years later, that I can look upon my West Virginia with ``joy and gladness and pride of heart.'' On this West Virginia Day, I again want to speak about the people of West Virginia, the hardest-working and most patriotic people in the United States. They have endured hardships, poverty, and floods of biblical proportions, but have remained loyal to their State and our Nation. Whenever the country has needed them, in war or in peace, they have always been there, and I have always been so proud to represent them in the United States Senate.

On this West Virginia Day, I again speak about the splendors of my State--truly one of the most beautiful states in the Nation. With its rushing, trout-filled mountain streams, its majestic rolling green hills, picturesque villages and towns, magnificent forests, scenic state parks--no wonder the State has been depicted in song and verse as being ``almost heaven.'' There are the State's natural beauties like Seneca Rocks and the New River Gorge. I hope the pages will go and see these scenic beauties in this State that is almost heaven. There are the State's natural wonders like Cranberry Glades, Hawks Nest, and Berkeley Springs.

You can go camping in West Virginia's beautiful parks like Cooper's Rock State Forest, Babcock, Pipestem, or Watoga. You can go fishing in the Greenbrier River, Holly River, and Tygart Lake. You can take a ski trip in the wondrous Canaan Valley, or go white-water rafting down the magnificent Cheat River, go hiking along the awesome Appalachian Trail.

Simply drive around the State and enjoy a pace and a view far different than the drives most of us suffer through daily. I invite my colleagues, I invite the media, I invite the people in the galleries, people everywhere, to take a drive in West Virginia. You will love it. You will never forget it. There is nothing like it elsewhere in the world. West Virginia. Almost heaven.

I invite the Democratic pages and the Republican pages, our staffs. I have often spoken enthusiastically of the ``wild and wonderful'' scenery of West Virginia. Therefore, on this, the 140th anniversary of my great and glorious State, I want to tell you about its history.

Some of my State's history is well-known and well-documented; like the fact that it is the only State created from another State without the parent State's permission, and that it is the only State to achieve statehood by the proclamation of a president, Abraham Lincoln. It can be argued that the first battle of the American Revolution took place at Point Pleasant and that the last battle of the Revolution was fought at Fort Henry, in Wheeling. The State is rich in Civil War history; at Harpers Ferry, John Brown began the bloody quest to finally eliminate the scourge of slavery from this nation, and the first significant land battle of the Civil War took place at Phillipi, on June 3, 1861.

But there is another, lesser known, side to my State's history that I want to talk about today--a history that shows what a unique, diversified, and fascinating state West Virginia really is.

Most of my colleagues are aware that West Virginia's political history includes providing the Senate's Majority Leader, the Senate's Minority Leader, the chairman of the Senate Appropriation's Committee, and the second longest serving Senator in American history--and that was all one person--who? Me. But I proudly point out that my State's political history includes the first African American woman, Minnie Buckingham Harper of Welch, to ever serve in a State legislature. That was in 1928. In 1934, West Virginians elected one of the youngest persons ever elected by popular vote to the United States Senate--Rush D. Holt. His son, Rush Holt, now represents the State of New Jersey in the House of Representatives.

Most people are aware of the importance of coal to West Virginia, and the

importance of West Virginia coal to the Nation. For nearly a century, West Virginia coal helped fuel America's industries, heat our homes and power our battleships. But West Virginia's natural resources have also included America's first natural gas well, in 1815, near Charleston, and the world's largest gas well, ``Big Moses'' in Tyler County, which was drilled in 1894 and produced 100,000,000 cubic feet of gas per day. In 1941, the first and largest synthetic rubber plant in the United States began operation near Charleston.

There is so much to see and do in West Virginia. Come on down. Come on down to West Virginia. There is nature. There is beauty. There is history. And the State's modern highway system. I can remember when, while serving in the West Virginia Legislature in 1947, seeing that State as a State without a single mile of divided 4-lane highway on the 1947 highway map. Think of that. A 1947 highway map shows not a single mile, not one in the whole State, of divided 4-lane highway. Oh, but what a change.

With the State's modern highway system, you can drive to Weirton, WV, and see the only city in the United States that stretches from a State's eastern border all the way to its western border.

At Grafton, WV, you can visit Andrews Church, which, on May 10, 1908, was the site of the first celebration of Mother's Day. Just a few hours away, near Thomas, WV, is a unique, picturesque little church, Our Lady of the Pines, once considered the smallest church in the United States.

You can travel to Charles Town, WV, and see where rural free mail delivery began in 1896 and see the Court House in which more than 500 coal miners went on trial for treason and insurrection in 1922.

Speaking of labor history, drive over to Martinsburg and see where the great railroad strike of 1877 began, or down to Logan County, WV, and view the site of the largest labor uprising in American history, the Battle of Blair Mountain.

West Virginia also has a fascinating business history. The first trust in the United States was the salt trust organized in 1817 by the salt manufacturers along the Kanawha River.

The first patent for a soda fountain--if you have ever taken your girl to the soda fountain? What a great memory that is. I used to walk 3 miles to take my girlfriend at that time--she's my wife now, after 66 years--I took her to the soda fountain. And I would buy a quart of ice cream. It just cost 5 cents in those days.

The first patent for a soda fountain was granted to George Dulty, of Wheeling, WV, in 1833 and outdoor advertising had its origins in that same city in 1908. The first municipally owned parking building in the United States opened in Welch--that is in Dowell County. The very Southern point of West Virginia--in 1941.

Sports history, West Virginia has that too. Colliers, WV, on June 1, 1880, was the site of the first barenuckles heavyweight championship fight. At Burnsville, in 1960, Danny Heater scored 135 points in a single basketball game, for which he is in the Guinness Book of World Records. Can you believe that, 135 points in a basketball game?

Finally, let me invite you to drive over to Ritchie County, WV, and see where history was made when a Mountain was made from a Mole Hill-- literally. It actually happened. It happened when the good people of the town of Mole Hill, WV, decided to change the name of their town to Mountain. They changed it from a ``molehill' into a ``mountain.''

On this the 140th anniversary of West Virginia, we will welcome you.

On this, the 140th anniversary of West Virginia, I say happy birthday, West Virginia. Come on down to West Virginia. Congratulations, West Virginia.

``Born amidst tears and blood and fire and desolation,'' in the words of Reverend Mr. McLure, from a ``little beginning'' you have grown ``to be a might and a power'' that has made us look upon you `` with joy and gladness and pride of heart.''

This was no land for lily-fingered men

Who bowed and scraped and danced a neat quadrille,

In towns and cities far beyond the ken

Of mountaineers--who loved each rock and rill.

It was a place for lean, tall men with love

For freedom flowing strongly in their veins,

For those attuned to vagrant stars above,

To rugged peaks, deep snows and June-time rains.

And so our State was whelped in time of strife

And cut its teeth upon a cannon ball;

Its heritage was cleaner, better life,

Within the richest storehouse of them all.

With timber, oil and gas and salt and coal,

It bargained in the world's huge marketplace.

The mountain empire reached a mighty goal;

It never ran a pauper's sordid race.

And best of all, it sired a hardy flock

Whose fame will grow with centuries to be,

Tough as a white-oak stump or limestock rock,

The mountaineers--who always shall be free.

Mr. President, Mother Nature has once again, as I have seen so many times, dealt West Virginia a heavy blow. For more than a week, heavy rains have spawned flash floods and mudslides. The storms have resulted in millions of dollars in damages to homes and businesses in Central and Southern West Virginia, damage so significant that yesterday Governor Bob Wise requested a Federal disaster declaration for then counties.

His request seeks Federal aid for Boone, Cabell, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, McDowell, Mingo, Putnam, and Wayne counties.

The need for help is abundantly clear. Hundreds and hundreds of homes have been washed away or significantly damaged because of the storms. Mudslides continue to threaten communities nestled along West Virginia's many mountains, mudslides that could be triggered with just a little more rain or a little more wind. Thousands of West Virginians have been without power, without telephone service, and without utility service. Bridges and roads have literally been wiped off the map, isolating communities that already are working to pick themselves up from this devastation.

Make no mistake, West Virginians are committed to rebuilding.

So many times I have seen them after a flood, if the homes were still standing, go right back into those homes, or, if the homes were gone, building another home and going right back into those homes.

So they are committed to rebuilding their lives. But they need help to get back on their feet.

As I have just indicated, today is West Virginia Day--a day normally set aside to celebrate the anniversary of the Mountain State becoming a full-fledged partner in this union of States. There will not be much celebrating today in these storm-ravaged counties. But we do celebrate the West Virginia spirit that has shined throughout the years, and in that same spirit that has shined throughout this disaster. It is a spirit that can never be washed away, no matter how heavy the rains come, and no matter how deep the floods.

Thousands of Mountain State residents have taken part in the recover effort. I applaud them. Like so many before them among those West Virginia hills, they have filled sandbags and carried pets to safety. They have pulled people from homes just before the onrushing waters came rolling in. It is no surprise. Helping neighbors in need is the West Virginia way.

It is with regret that I inform the Senate that that West Virginia spirit may have cost one man his life. In Lincoln County, in the town of Spurlockville, 37-year-old Joey Roberts was trying to give a hand to a friend whose car had stalled in waist-high water. The friend was trying to cross the Mud River in an area that normally is shallow enough for passage. But not on this day. The waters were just too much. When trying to help, Mr. Roberts slipped and fell. His body was recovered some time later. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, and with all of the families who are struggling to regain some sense of safety and normalcy amid these storms.

I hope that the request for Federal disaster assistance is approved quickly. Every moment counts in the recovery efforts, and every little bit of help is crucial.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, Sally Goffinet is an unsung hero. Like many thousands of Senate staffers, her name is not widely known. There are no news accounts of her 31 years of service to her country. Her quiet professionalism will never be the subject of wide acclaim. But she is a star of the Senate family. Sally is one of the thousands of people stretching back over the history of our Republic to whom the Senate owes a very great debt.

Sally Goffinet was hired in 1972 by one of the greatest Parliamentarians ever to serve the Senate, the late Dr. Floyd Riddick. Sally was the first woman ever to be assigned to that office. She continued to serve the Parliamentarian's office until the spring of this year, at which time she retired. Sally has worked for every Parliamentarian since the office was established, except for the very first Senate Parliamentarian, Mr. Charles Watkins. Charles Watkins was the Parliamentarian when I came to the Senate 45 years ago.

Sally graduated from college with a BA in history. So her interest in the Senate came naturally.

Can you imagine the institutional knowledge and the institutional memory she possesses? She possesses something there.

When I say that, I mean an institutional memory. And not every Senator has that, an institutional memory. It is acquired after one is here a great while, normally. But it is not normally that every Senator acquires an institutional memory.

Why is that? One has to be interested. A Senator must be interested in the Senate as an institution, its history, its customs, its folklore, its rules, and its precedents. Then one will have an institutional memory.

The institution means something. The institution is always at the center of a Senator's public life, if he or she has an institutional memory.

Can you imagine the institutional memory that Sally possesses? When one works alongside so many Parliamentarians, one acquires a deep, deep exposure to Senate rules and precedents. Senate rules and precedents-- how important are they?

Thomas Jefferson in his manual, ``Jefferson's Manual,'' spoke of Speaker Onslow.

I watched television when it was good. There is a good show on most Saturday nights. I get it on Channel 22 in McLean, or I get it on 26 over in McLean. On some evenings, this particular picture, or show, will be on both--possibly on 22 at a given time and a half hour later on Channel 26. This picture is British. Ah, what actors they are. We have few Americans, in my judgment, who are real, honest-to-goodness actors. They are conscious of the fact that they are acting in that show. It comes out at you when you watch it, but not with the British. They just act in a very natural way, and speak--what great English, what grammar. The British have it all over us, for the most part.

On Saturday nights, my wife Erma and I watch ``Keeping Up Appearances.'' It is good, clean comedy. So tune in on ``Keeping Up Appearances.''

As I talk about Sally, she has seen Members come and go. She has acquired an institutional memory. And such long service in such a position imparts almost a sixth sense about the Senate and about its unique role in our constitutional system.

And as I was about to say, Thomas Jefferson spoke of the Speaker of the British Parliament when he spoke of Mr. Onslow. The reason I got off on this other part about the Saturday evening TV is because there is a person in this comedy show whose name is Onslow. When Jefferson spoke of Onslow, he was speaking of a different Onslow. He was talking of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who said--and Jefferson said it also--that it is more important that there be a rule than what the actual rule says. And he makes a very good point in saying that it is more important that there be a rule than what the rule actually says. Because if there is a rule, there will be order, and a minority will be heard. If there is a rule, there will be order.

And so we are talking now about the Parliamentarians. The Senate has not always had a Parliamentarians. But Charlie Watkins was the Parliamentarian when I came. That is a long time ago as we measure service in the Senate.

So Sally acquired that deep exposure, that I referred to, to the Senate rules and precedents. And one who is in such a position naturally witnesses the Senate's dynamic change as events occur. History progresses and Members come and go. Such long service in such a position imparts, as I say, almost a sixth sense about the Senate and about its unique role in our constitutional system. Such an individual really can never be replaced.

Today, when so many Members and staffers in our Senate family do not stay very long, I often wonder how we will fare in keeping that sense of the institution alive in future years, that institutional pride, pride in being a Member, an individual who has been selected by the constituents of that particular State, who have gone to the voting booths and cast their votes for a particular individual to serve in this great institution. We must find a way because, year by year, an understanding of the Senate's ultimate role and purpose is slipping away.

We have these pages on the Republican side and the Democratic side, and they are wholesome, fine young people. I talk with every new class that comes in. I get acquainted with them. I talk with them. I tell them stories. I tell them, for example, the story written by that great author, Tolstoy, ``How Much Land Does a Man Need?''

I have not talked to this new group yet, but probably the first story I will tell them will be ``How Much Land Does a Man Need'' by Tolstoy. Then I may tell them that story that great Chataquan speaker told 5,000 times. Russel Conwell, that great Chataquan speaker, told the story ``Acres of Diamonds.'' He said he had told that story 5,000 times. Well, I am going to tell that story to the pages also.

These are great stories, and I look forward to talking with them. In this way, I help to preserve an understanding of what the Senate is all about. We talk about that. We talk about politics and about the Senate so that these young people, when they leave here, will go out and they will spread the word also.

Individuals like Sally Goffinet have helped to keep us true to our course. And, today, I thank Sally for her long years of service, her pleasant and professional demeanor, which I will miss, and her wisdom, born of long experience and deep appreciation for the special place which is the United States Senate.

I send my best to her husband of 31 years, Joe Goffinet, and to her daughter, Sarah. Joe is a special education teacher. Sarah is a graduate of Bowdoin College in Maine, and she is presently working at the Corcoran Gallery of Art. So the Senate's loss is their gain.

Well, the next subject I want to talk about today--and may I say to any other Senator who wishes to have the floor, I will be glad to give it up at any time. So I do not want to hog the floor, if I may use that word, ``hog.''

Tomorrow is Flag Day.

Now, from time to time, I speak on events such as Flag Day, these national holidays--Independence Day, Father's Day, Mother's Day, Columbus Day, and so on. When I first came to the Congress, now over a half century ago, there were Senators and there were Members of the House who spoke on these subjects. I do not see much of that anymore. So I try to preserve that way of Senate tradition, talking about these days every year as they come along. It enables us to be still and know and to remember the things that are our heritage, the things that made America great. We hear a lot about family values, and so I speak on Mother's Day about our mothers, I speak in advance of Father's Day--as I will a little later this morning--about Father's Day, to preserve this heritage.

Mr. President, since 1885, Americans have observed Flag Day on June 14. In 1949, President Truman signed an Act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day. That day, June 14, which this year falls on Saturday, was chosen because it was on June 14, 1777, that the Continental Congress adopted the Flag Act establishing an official flag for the new Nation.

The first Flag Act was a model of brevity. Here is what it said in its entirety:

Resolved, That the Flag of the United States be made of

thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the Union be

thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new

Constellation.

As many Senators may remember from their schooldays, in the early years of the Nation there were a number of different variations of the flag including, of course, the one consisting of a circle of 13 stars that was attributed in our schoolbooks to Betsy Ross.

As the Nation grew, however, changes were made to the flag. Each change was authorized by an Act of Congress or, in later years, by an Executive order of the President.

In 1818, Congress provided for a flag of 13 stripes, 1 for each of the original 13 Colonies, and 1 star for each State to be added to the flag on the Fourth of July following the admission of each new State to the Union.

The most recent change was made by Executive order of President Eisenhower on August 21, 1959. His order provided for the arrangement of the stars in 9 rows of stars staggered horizontally and 11 rows of stars staggered vertically. That is the flag that flies over this Capitol Building today, and that is the flag that stands majestically as it does beside the desk of the President of the Senate, to the right of the Presiding Officer.

Today that Presiding Officer is from the State of Tennessee, and he presides over the Senate with great dignity and aplomb.

While we are on that subject, people all over the country watch the United States Senate, which is the premier upper legislative body in the world today. Aren't you proud that you serve in this body? Always keep in mind that the world is watching. It is watching that Presiding Officer, how he or she presides, and that is why I try to suggest to new Members that they preside in a way that lets the world know that here is truly the greatest body of all.

I suggest they not read mail, they not read newspapers while they are presiding; that they give their full attention to the Senate, to the Chamber, to the individual Senator who is speaking. Members of State legislatures watch this Presiding Officer, believing that here is the best, and we have to be conscious of that when we preside. We should be. Professors, students, coal miners, housewives--people in every walk of life--watch that desk.

There used to be a telephone at that desk. When I became majority leader, I took it out. I believe I was majority leader at that time, or perhaps majority whip. But I took that telephone out so the Senators would not sit at that desk and be talking on the telephone while they were presiding. A few of them did that, so I just moved out the telephone.

So there is the flag right there by the Presiding Officer. We see it every day when we address the Chair. That is the flag, as I say, that flies over the Capitol Building today.

This very abridged, short history now of the flag does not, of course, do justice to the emotions that we all feel as we look at that flag. Imagine the excitement in each new State as a new flag is unfurled for the first time with its new constellation of stars. Imagine the excitement in the State of Alaska when that new flag was unfurled. Imagine the excitement in the State of Hawaii in 1959, when I first came to the Senate--there was a new star in that constellation. Imagine the excitement in Hawaii as the people saw that flag with the new star. West Virginia was the 35th star on the flag.

We have but to think of the explorers who have carried the American flag to the ends of the Earth and into space. We have but to look at the classic photograph of the American flag being erected at Iwo Jima to share in the determination and triumph of that moment. And in the wake of September 11, 2001, who was not touched to the core by the sight of all the American flags that sprang up defiantly, as it were, across the Nation immediately after that attack, showing our sympathy, our resolve.

There is no doubting the love and the sorrow when you catch a tear creeping down the face of a man in uniform as taps is played and another flag is carefully and ceremoniously folded from atop the coffin and preserved for a grieving widow.

Mr. President, our flag is our Nation's greatest symbol, the icon by which we are recognized around the world. Old Glory--there is nothing, nothing, that can match it is our flag. That is the way we feel about it. It has withstood war. It has withstood assaults upon its fabric. But no assault has yet bested the fabric of this Nation or the ideals upon which the Nation was founded.

I firmly believe that if we hold true to our Constitution--here it is; I hold it in my hand, the Constitution of the United States--our flag will never fail, and this great constellation of stars and States will shine on through ages to come.

So I close with one of my favorite poems by Henry Holcomb Bennett, entitled ``The Flag Goes By.''

Hats off.

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums,

A flash of color beneath the sky;

Hats off.

The flag is passing by.

Blue and crimson and white it shines,

Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines.

Hats off.

The colors before us fly;

But more than the flag is passing by.

Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great,

Fought to make and to save the State:

Weary marchers and sinking ships;

Cheers of victory on dying lips;

Days of plenty and years of peace;

March of a strong land's swift increase;

Equal justice, right in law,

Stately honor and reverend awe.

Sign of a nation, great and strong

To ward her people from foreign wrong;

Pride and glory and honor--all

Live in the colors to stand or fall.

Hats off.

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums;

And loyal hearts are beating high;

Hats off.

The flag is passing by.

Mr. President, this Sunday, June 15, is Father's Day. It is a day of lovely chosen, if sometimes unstylish, ties; a day of lumpy clay bowls and golf tee puzzles; of handmade cards and big brunches. It is a day for family members to struggle over what to get dad, in a reflection of both the many hours that fathers spend away from home working and of his proclivity for just buying himself what he wants.

What does dad need? Nothing, really. What he wants is more time with his family and more time for fun, but that cannot be purchased. That is something that cannot be purchased at the mall.

This Father's Day will be even more special for the men returning from service in Iraq in time to meet newborn sons and daughters for the first time. They will be coming home to a precious new life that they see for the first time in many instances. It is difficult to imagine the poignant first

meeting as the same large hands that wrestled weapons on aircraft or into tanks now cradle small bundles squirming with life and happy, toothless smiles. What moments of simple, unalloyed joy.

If we are fortunate this Father's Day, it will be a day of beautiful June skies, warm weather and lush lawns trimmed close and smelling of fresh cut grass. If we are lucky in this very rainy spring, it will be a day to enjoy family activities outside, to preside over savory picnics or barbecues, to play ball games, to take long walks with the dog.

I look forward to that. I take a walk with my dog every day before I come to work. When she sees me getting ready she knows I am going to leave and go to work. When she sees me put on a tie, she stays at my feet and does not leave me until I take her for that walk.

I used to have a little dog named Billy. I spoke of Billy many times on this floor during his 15 years with us, but Billy is gone. Now we have a little shitzu, and she was named ``Trouble'' by my wife. These dogs were to be the palace dogs in Tibet, exceedingly friendly. She just loves everybody so I have to be very careful that she does not get out the door and go. She will leave with anybody. I call her ``baby.''

But that walk with the dog, or to have fun at the pool or lake, it is in these venues that we see the best sides of fathers, relaxed and happy, even a bit goofy as they play with their kids and banter with their wives.

In a suit or a uniform at work, we do not commonly see fathers but rather bosses, or officials, men with titles, men with responsibilities, mindful of production goals or other targets and deadlines. In this work-a-day mode, men set fine role models for their children of strong work ethics and integrity and responsibility for their families. But it is the kid tossing dad in the pool or the dad as softball coach who children are thinking of as they scrawl their ``I love yous'' on Father's Day cards.

One may well appreciate the hours and effort that fathers put into their jobs in order to provide the best for their children, but that sacrifice does not fill the heart with memories in the same way that quiet moments do. Late nights at work or at home paying bills and preparing taxes are important but not remembered or as appreciated by children as when dad reads bedtime stories and passes out good night kisses.

It has been a long time since I had young children, but I remember how it was then. My children, who have grown into adulthood, have children of their own, who have grandchildren of their own, meaning that Erma and I have great-grandchildren. Erma and I remember the time when we put our children to bed and when they said their prayers and we gave them our good-night kisses.

Fathers play an important role in families far beyond their title as breadwinner. Their comforting presence adds to family life and their loss is felt profoundly.

It was in recognition of both roles that one of the first Father's Day services was held, in my own State of West Virginia. It makes me proud that my State figures in the history of both Mother's Day and Father's Day.

That first Father's Day service was conducted by Dr. Robert Webb at the Central United Methodist Church in Fairmont, WV, in 1908. The service was to honor the 210 fathers killed in the terrible mine explosion at Monongah, WV, on December 6, 1907, that took the lives of more than 360 men in all. Think about it. There was no joy at Christmas in Monongah in 1907. The idea for the service was the inspiration of Mrs. Charles Clayton, who sympathized with the grieving families of these men, as she still mourned the loss of her own father. Reverend Webb, was Mrs. Clayton's pastor, and he agreed with her thoughts and prepared a special mass held in honor and remembrance of fathers on July 5, the very next year, 1908. This service was but a one-time event.

It was the selfless efforts of one father that inspired his daughter to advocate a national Father's Day. After listening to a Mother's Day sermon in 1909, Mrs. Sonora Smart Dodd proposed the idea of a ``father's day'' to honor her father, Willam Smart. Mr. Smart was a Civil War veteran who was widowed when his wife died in childbirth delivering their sixth child. Mr. Smart raised the newborn and his other five children on a rural farm in eastern Washington State. That would be quite a feat even today, but imagine doing so in the late 19th century! There were no disposable diapers then, no prepared formula or baby food, no day care, no automatic washing machines and dryers, no frozen orange juice. Frozen orange juice came along in 1947. No sliced bread here. That did not come along until 1930. You hear people say: This is the greatest thing since sliced bread. That doesn't go very far back. Mechanically sliced bread sold commercially by 1930.

So there were none of the conveniences that we take for granted today. Mrs. Dodd gives her father great credit, and credit he deserves, but without the help of his five older children, it is difficult to imagine how Mr. Smart could have met the challenge.

In my own life, as my mother approached death during the influenza pandemic of 1918, when I was just under a year old, she chose to ask relatives to raise me. She asked my father to give me, the baby, she said, to the Byrds, Titus Dalton Byrd and his wife Vlurma. His wife Vlurma was my natural father's sister. My father, my natural father, had several sisters.

So when my mother died of influenza in that great epidemic that swept the world, 20 million people died--nobody really knows how many-- throughout the world, 12 million in India, perhaps 750,000, give or take, in the United States. They would become ill one morning and die that afternoon or the next day--the great influenza epidemic.

So my mother felt that if she did not recover, she wanted this family, Tyson Dalton Byrd and his wife, to raise me. That was her wish. Of my three older brothers and a sister, the three older brothers were given to the other sister. My father had several sisters. My father kept the daughter, my sister. So that is the way it was.

The people who reared me were kind. They were not well educated. I was the first person ever, I suppose, in my family to go to the second or third grade, if that far. Nobody else in my family ever went beyond that. They could barely read and write, but they were good people. They were honest, they were hard working, and they loved me.

So that is what I remember. My dad was my uncle, you see. I never knew any other father because my uncle and his wife, my aunt, brought me to West Virginia from North Carolina when I was 2 or 3 years old. So I remember this man, Titus Dalton Byrd as my father. He loved me.

I can remember his coming from work. He was a coal miner. I can remember seeing him come down the railroad track from a half mile, three-quarters of a mile away. I could see him coming, this tall man with black hair and red mustache and watch chain. I could see the watch chain; I could see him coming down the railroad tracks. I would run to meet him.

When I came near to him, he would put down his dinner bucket. He would lift up the lid. He would reach down into that dinner bucket and pull out a cake. My mom--my aunt; I called her my mom--always put a cake, a 5-cent cake, in the dinner bucket. He took the cake--he never ate it--but always brought it back. He saved the cake for me. So he put that dinner bucket down on the wooden cross tie, the railroad cross tie, reached in to get that cake, and I ran up to meet him, and he would give me the cake.

This fine old couple had had a son, but that child had died of scarlet fever before I was born. So they took me into their home and they raised me. That must have been a difficult choice for my father and my mother. She was concerned that she might not recover, and they decided to give me, the baby, to the Byrds.

So without the conveniences that we take for granted today, you might imagine how it was to raise an infant or a toddler in 1918, bringing a child in 1918 to manhood. Under the circumstances, with three older brothers and a sister, I know it must have been a very difficult thing for my father to try to raise this family with the mother gone. So I was raised by my uncle, Titus Dalton Byrd, and my aunt, Vlurma Byrd. As I already said, I called my uncle my dad, and he was my dad. He was the only dad I ever knew until I was ready to graduate from high

school, when he told me the story about how my mother died and how my mother's wish was what it came to be, that I be made a part of the Byrd family.

So my uncle--he was a patient, quiet man--toiled in the dark pits of the West Virginia coal mines without any complaint. I never saw him sit at the table and complain about the food--never. He always thought to save me that cake. And, like good fathers everywhere, he encouraged me always to do my best. He encouraged me in my school work. He and she always wanted to see my report card and there was a line on that report card designated ``deportment.'' He always looked at that as well. He wanted to see how I behaved in school. And he always told me that if I got a whipping in school, I could be sure of getting another one at home.

So he encouraged me in my school work. He did not want me to follow him into the mines which were, in those days, just as dangerous as they had been in 1907, in Monongah.

In all my years, I say to these wonderful young people and to those who are watching out there watching this Senate Chamber today, in all those years I never heard him use God's name in vain. I never heard him complain about his lot in life. He simply toiled on, doing the best he could, a man of few words and few affectionate gestures, but loving nonetheless.

In any event, the first Father's Day was observed on June 19, 1910, in Spokane, WA. In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge supported the idea of a national observance of Father's Day, but it was not until 1966 that President Lyndon Johnson signed a Presidential proclamation declaring the third Sunday in June as the national Father's Day. In 1972, President Nixon established the permanent national observance of Father's Day.

The Bible admonishes us: ``Honor thy father and thy mother.'' And on this day in June we honor our fathers with gifts, cards, and time spent together as a family. The rest of the year we can only hope to honor our fathers by our own hard work, as we try to live up to the dreams-- yes, the dreams--that they have for us.

I think of Kipling's lines at this moment. I think they are quite appropriate:

Our Fathers in a wondrous age,

Ere yet the Earth was small,

Ensured to us an heritage,

And doubted not at all

That we, the children of their heart,

Which then did beat so high,

In later time should play like part

For our posterity.

Then, fretful, murmur not they gave

So great a charge to keep,

Nor dream that awestruck Time shall save

Their labour while we sleep.

Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year,

Our fathers' title runs.

Make we likewise their sacrifice,

Defrauding not our sons.

Mr. President, I close with a short poem by Grace V. Watkins entitled ``I Heard My Father Pray.'' I offer it in honor of Titus Dalton Byrd, my Dad, who is looking down from Heaven.

Once in the night I heard my father pray.

The house was sleeping, and the dark above

The hill was wide. I listened to him say

Such phrases of devotion and of love,

So far beyond his customary fashion,

I held my breath in wonder. Then he spoke

My name with such tenderness and such compassion,

Forgotten fountains in my heart awoke.

That night I learned that love is not a thing

Measured by eloquence of hand or tongue,

That sometimes those who voice no whispering

Of their affection harbor love as strong,

As powerful and deathless as the sod,

But mentioned only when they talk with God.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Five minutes.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and the

Chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, in offering this amendment today. At the same time, I deeply regret the fact that we are being forced to have to come to this floor and offer this amendment.

S. 824 contains a brand new $500 million entitlement program. This legislation would earmark $500 million of existing aviation security fees for grants to airports for construction.

The Transportation Security Administration was created by the Congress in response to the attacks of September 11. It was a failure of our airport screening procedures that allowed 19 men to board domestic airliners with weapons and turn four planes into instruments of death and destruction. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the new Homeland Security Department. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which is so ably chaired by the senior Senator from Mississippi, is charged with funding the TSA--one of many agencies now in the Department of Homeland Security.

The President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for the TSA assumes that $2 billion and $70 million in aviation security fees will go to the TSA to meet its security requirements. These fees are used to fund the thousands of screeners at our airports, for purchasing security equipment such as explosives detection equipment, and for the Federal Air Marshals program, all of which help secure our airports and the millions of travelers who use them. The provision in this bill that Senator Cochran and I are seeking to modify would take $500 million of those fees that the President has requested for the TSA and instead earmark the $500 million for a new entitlement program for airport construction grants.

This new mandatory program purports to ``solve'' an airport security construction problem. However, the provision actually creates a homeland security problem. The provision will create a $500 million hole in the TSA budget--a hole that the Homeland Security Subcommittee will be unable to fill without creating other holes in our homeland security budget.

How should we fill that $500 million hole? Should we take Border Patrol agents off our Southwest border? Should we cut port security programs? Should we further slow down the Coast Guard's modernization program? Should we reduce the numbers of inspectors at our ports of entry on our borders and increase the waiting time for agricultural produce to enter the U.S. from Mexico and Canada? Should we cut grants to our States and cities to equip and train first responders? These are the very real choices we on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will have to face if the provision in this bill is permitted to pass.

I sympathize with the dilemma facing the members of the Commerce Committee. They are attempting to relieve the security construction burden facing our Nation's airports. I support these airport security programs and have provided funds in the past to begin to meet these airport security needs. However, the President did not request one dime for airport security construction in his budget, not one dime. So if this provision became law, we would need to cut $500 million from homeland security priorities requested by the President.

Our amendment is a simple one. Instead of creating a new entitlement program, instead of creating a colossal new $500 million earmark, instead of putting airport construction grants at the front of the line, ahead of border security, port security or first responder grants, this amendment would simply turn this new $500 million program into an authorization. It would allow the Senate to use the appropriations process to make careful choices among the competing homeland security priorities.

I urge my colleagues to join us on this amendment and strike this ill-advised provision.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield briefly, I thank the Senator from Arizona and the comanager on this side of the aisle for their accepting the amendment. I think it is a real service.

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

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

What is the pending question before the Senate, Mr. President?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, is the Senate operating under any time control at the moment?

Mr. President, I have one final question. Has the Pastore rule expired?

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Iraq's WMD Intelligence: Where is the Outrage?

Mr. President, with each passing day, the questions concerning and surrounding Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction take on added urgency. Where are the massive stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other nerve agents that we were told Iraq was hoarding? Where are the thousands of liters of botulinim toxin? Wasn't it the looming threat to America posed by these weapons that propelled the United States into war with Iraq? Isn't this the reason American military personnel were called upon to risk their lives in mortal combat?

On March 17, in his final speech to the American people before ordering the invasion of Iraq, President Bush took one last opportunity to bolster his case for war. The centerpiece of his argument was the same message he brought to the United Nations months before, and the same message he hammered home at every opportunity in the intervening months, namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and thus presented an imminent danger to the American people. ``Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,'' the President said.

Now, nearly 2 months after the fall of Baghdad, the United States has yet to find any physical evidence of those lethal weapons. Could they be buried underground or are they somehow camouflaged in plain sight? Have they been shipped outside of the country? Do they actually exist? The questions are mounting. What started weeks ago as a restless murmur throughout Iraq has intensified into a worldwide cacophony of confusion.

The fundamental question that is nagging at many is this: How reliable were the claims of this President and key members of his administration that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed a clear and imminent threat to the United States, such a grave threat that immediate war was the only recourse?

Lawmakers, who were assured before the war that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq, and many of whom voted--now get this--to give this administration a sweeping grant of authority to wage war based upon those assurances, have now been placed in the uncomfortable position of wondering if they were misled. The media is ratcheting up the demand for answers: Could it be that the intelligence was wrong, or could it be that the facts were manipulated a little here, a little there? These are very serious and grave questions, and they require immediate answers. We cannot--and must not--brush such questions aside. We owe the people of this country an answer. Those people who are listening, who are watching this Chamber, and every Member of this body ought to be demanding answers.

I am encouraged that the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees are planning to investigate the credibility of the intelligence that was used to build the case for war against Iraq. We need a thorough, open, gloves-off investigation of this matter, and we need it quickly. The credibility of the President and his administration hangs in the balance. We must not trifle with the people's trust by foot-dragging.

What amazes me is that the President himself is not clamoring for an investigation. It is his integrity, President Bush's integrity, that is on the line. It is his truthfulness that is being questioned. It is his leadership that has come under scrutiny. And yet he has raised no question that I have heard. He has expressed no curiosity about the strange turn of events in Iraq. He has expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled by people in his own administration. How is it that the President, who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern over the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Indeed, instead of leading the charge to uncover the discrepancy between what we were told before the war and what we have found--or failed to find--since the war, the White House is circling the wagons and scoffing at the notion that anyone in the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq.

In an interview with Polish television last week, President Bush noted that two trailers were found in Iraq that U.S. intelligence officials believe are mobile biological weapons production labs, although no trace of chemical or biological material was found in the trailers. ``We found the weapons of mass destruction,'' the President was quoted as saying. But certainly he cannot be satisfied with such meager evidence.

At the CIA, Director George Tenet released a terse statement the other day defending the intelligence his agency provided on Iraq. ``The integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong,'' he said. How can he be so absolutely sure?

At the Pentagon, Doug Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for policy, held a rare press conference this week to deny reports that a high-level intelligence cell in the Defense Department doctored data and pressured the CIA to strengthen the case for war. ``I know of no pressure. I can't rule out what other people may have perceived. Who knows what people perceive,'' he said. Is this administration not at all concerned about the perception of deception? The perception is there.

And Secretary of State Powell, who presented the U.S. case against Iraq to the United Nations last February, strenuously defended his presentation in an interview this week and denied any erosion in the administration's credibility. ``Everybody knows that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,'' he said. Should he not be more concerned than that about U.S. claims before the United Nations?

And yet . . . and yet . . . the questions continue to grow, and the doubts are beginning to drown out the assurances. For every insistence from Washington that the weapons of mass destruction case against Iraq is sound comes a counterpoint from the field--another dry hole, another dead end.

As the top Marine general in Iraq was recently quoted as saying, ``It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Again, believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.''

Who are the American people to believe? What are we to think? Even though I opposed the war against Iraq because I believe that the doctrine of preemption is a flawed and dangerous instrument of foreign policy, I did believe that Saddam Hussein possessed some chemical and biological weapons capability. But I did not believe that he presented an imminent threat to the United States as indeed he did not.

Such weapons may eventually turn up. I said so weeks ago; they may eventually turn up. But my greater fear is that the belligerent stance of the United States may have convinced Saddam Hussein to sell or disperse his weapons to dark forces outside of Iraq. Shouldn't this administration be equally alarmed if they really believed that Saddam had such dangerous capabilities?

The administration took steps to protect the oil facilities in Iraq from being damaged and set on fire. The administration took extraordinary steps

to do that. Why did it not take equally extraordinary steps to protect chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear weapons, possibly, from being looted, from being stolen, from being taken away by those who would sell them, possibly, to terrorists?

Saddam Hussein is missing. Osama bin Laden is missing. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are missing. And the President's mild claims that we are ``on the look'' do not comfort me. There ought to be an army of UN inspectors combing the countryside in Iraq or searching for evidence of disbursement of these weapons right now. Why are we waiting? Is there fear of the unknown or fear of the truth?

This nation--and, indeed, the world--was led into war with Iraq on the grounds that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States and to the global community. As the President said in his March 17 address to the Nation, ``The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.''

That fear may still be valid, but I wonder how the war with Iraq has really mitigated the threat from terrorists. As the recent attack in Saudi Arabia proved, terrorism is alive and well and unaffected by the situation in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the President seems oblivious to the controversy swirling about the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Our Nation's credibility before the world is at stake. While his administration digs in to defend the status quo, Members of Congress are questioning the credibility of the intelligence and the public case made by this administration on which the war with Iraq was based. Members of the media, Members of the fourth estate, are openly challenging whether America's intelligence agencies were simply wrong or were callously manipulated. Vice President Cheney's numerous visits to the CIA are being portrayed by some intelligence professionals as ``pressure.'' And the American people are wondering, once again, what is going on in the dark shadows of Washington.

It is time that we had some answers. It is time that the American people were given some answers. It is time that the administration stepped up its acts to reassure the American people that the horrific weapons that the administration told us threatened the world's safety have not fallen into terrorist hands. It is time that the President leveled with the American people. It is time that the President of the United States demanded that we get to the bottom of this matter and to follow every lead, regardless of where that lead goes.

We have waged a costly war against Iraq. American fighting men and women are still dying in Iraq. We have prevailed. But we are still losing, as I said, still losing American lives in that nation. And the troubled situation there is far from settled. American troops will likely be needed there for months, many months--even years. Billions of American tax dollars will continue to be needed to rebuild that country. I only hope that we have not won the war only to lose the peace. Until we have determined the fate of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or determined that they, in fact, did not exist, we cannot rest, we cannot claim victory.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a mystery, an enigma, a conundrum. What are they, where are they, how dangerous are they? Or were they a manufactured excuse by an administration eager to seize a country? It is time these questions were answered. It is time--past time--for the administration to level with the American people, and it is time for the President of the United States to demand an accounting from his own administration as to exactly how our Nation was led down such a twisted path to war. His credibility and the credibility of this Nation is at stake.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation designed to fulfill an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and my region some 38 years ago. I am speaking of the promise to build and complete a network of highways through the Appalachian region 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 measure to reauthorize the Federal- aid Highway Program, one of the most important, if not the most important, pieces of legislation which will be considered during this Congress. The Federal-aid Highway Program is at the very core of the Federal infrastructure investment exercise.

On September 30 of last year, our very capable Federal Highway Administrator, Ms. Mary Peters, testified before the Committee on Environment and Public Works on the condition and performance of our National Highway System. The Administration's Conditions and Performance Report has

again reminded us that a great deal more needs to be invested in our infrastructure if we are not to fall further and further behind in stemming the deterioration of our nation's highways and bridges and alleviating congestion on our nation's roads.

At the September 30 hearing, Administrator Peters testified that, even in the wake of the historic funding increase accomplished through TEA-21, congestion on our roads continues to worsen. An investment in our 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 will be necessary simply to maintain the current inadequate conditions of our highway network, where more than one in four of our nation's bridges are classified as deficient.

Having served as both Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have sought to do my part by championing the highest level of Federal highway investment for all fifty States that is possible under our budget constraints. Earlier this year, I am pleased to report 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. And just last month, 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 that boosted funding for our Federal-aid Highway Program by several billion dollars. That amendment commanded 79 votes on the Senate floor.

While serving in the other body, I had the great privilege of casting my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate highway System back in 1958. However, in 1964, it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian Region due to the extremely high cost associated with building Highways through Appalachia's rugged topography. As a result, the construction of the interstates would have had the detrimental effect of drawing passengers and freight, and the accompanying economic benefits, away from the Appalachian Region.

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 solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the path of river valleys and stream beds between mountains. These roads are still, more often than not, two-lane roads that are squeezed into very limited rights-of- way. They are characterized by low travel speeds and long travel distances and are often built to inadequate design standards.

One of the observations contained in Administrator Peters' testimony back in September 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.'' It appears that the pattern of road conditions is beginning to mirror the distribution of wealth in our country, whereby the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. That observation is most pertinent when you consider 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 many other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region are still waiting for the Federal Government to live up to its promise, made some 38 years ago, to complete the ADHS. The system is still less than 80 percent complete and I regret to observe that 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.

The rationale behind the completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less sound today than it was in 1964. 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 timely road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable well-paying jobs because of poor road access to major employment centers. The entire status of the Appalachian Development Highway System is laid out in great detail in the Cost to Complete Report for 2002 recently 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 had been limited to uncertain and inconsistent general fund appropriations. By provding the States of the Appalachian Region with a consistent and predictable source of funds to move forward on its uncompleted ADHS segments, TEA-21 served to reinvigorate our efforts to honor the promise made to the people of the Appalachian Region.

As is made clear in the Cost to Complete Report, this initiative has been a great success. States are making greater progress toward the completion of the system than they have in any five-year segment in recent memory. Since the last Cost to Complete Report, 183 miles of the system have been opened to traffic and we have successfully brought down the cost to complete the system by roughly $1.7 billion in Federal funds.

Back when we were debating TEA-21, some questions were asked as to how committed the States would be to completing the unfinished segments to the Appalachian Development Highway System. 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 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 the last highway bill authorized more than $218 billion in federal infrastructure investment over six 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 Appalachian 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 almost 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 a mammoth task for this Congress. 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.