Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. Res. 118, a resolution I submitted with Senator Leahy to recognize the Enosburg Falls Vermont Dairy Festival in honor of Harold Howrigan. Harold is a dairyman through and through. He recently retired from the board of the St. Albans Co-op, a Vermont dairy cooperative, and he ably served as the board's president for 17 years. Harold is a great guy--a real leader in Vermont's diary industry--and I've known him and his family for many years. Dairy farming is a tough job, and only those who really love it are successful. Congratulations, Harold, and I wish you the best in retirement. Enosburg Falls and the Lions Club of Enosburg host and sponsor the Vermont Dairy Festival. This year, the festival celebrates its 49th year. They say it is the largest parade in Vermont, and I believe it is the largest. Enosburg Falls is a small town; I know, I used to spend a lot of time there. In fact, my family settled in Enosburg in 1792. My family owned the local pharmacy on Main Street, in downtown Enosburg, for many years. But during the festival, thousands of Vermonters show up to enjoy the parade and participate in the events. It is a wonderful time. Our resolution honors Harold's years of service. And it recognizes the men and women who make the Vermont Dairy Festival the success that it is and will continue to be. I am hopeful that the Senate will soon act on this resolution to appropriately celebrate Harold's career and Vermonts dairy farmers.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those calling for the approval of the motion to proceed that we will soon vote on. For more than 3 years Congress has been trying to pass a highway bill. Today we are taking one more step in the long road toward passage of this important legislation. Mr. President, our Nation needs this bill. We need this bill because it will make our roads and transit systems more efficient and safer. This year it is estimated that 33 percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition; 27 percent of America's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; 37 percent of America's major urban roads are congested; and 42,000 Americans will die in traffic accidents. We need this bill because a fully funded bill is good for the economy. The Department of Transportation says that for every $1 billion of Federal spending on highway construction nationwide, 47,500 jobs are generated annually; and that every dollar invested in the Nation's highway system yields $5.40 in economic benefits because of reduced delays, improved safety and reduced vehicle operating costs. We need this bill to maintain our current highways and bridges than ever before, while demand for our roadways only increases. The Federal Highway Administration says that 52 percent of highway funds spent by States went to preserving highway systems while just 19 percent went to building new roads and bridges. At the same time, traffic congestion costs American motorists $69.5 billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs and we spend an additional 3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic. This bill isn't perfect. In fact, I think it needs additional funding. The White House has suggested an overall funding level for surface transportation of $284 billion over 6 years. This despite the President's own Transportation Department saying we need at least $300 billion to simply maintain the status quo, and something well above that level to make progress on conditions and performance. Thankfully, calls for increased funding have come from Republicans, Democrats and Independents; Members of the House and Senate, Governors and Mayors. But we will address the funding issue in due time. Today we must get cloture on this bill and move forward. Once again, I would like to thank the Senate leadership on both sides for their support of this bill. I would also like to pay tribute to Chairman Inhofe and Senators Bond and Baucus for their support and cooperation in helping get us to where we are today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his good words. I hope the Senators viewing this will join so we can expedite passage of this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the chairman such time as he desires from the time on this side.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is fair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for the opportunity but the answer is no.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am very pleased to concur in the amendment. The Senator has made an excellent presentation. I appreciate the work of the Senator.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chairman. I have a brief statement I would like to put in.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, when you live in Vermont, you must endure a long, hard winter. To keep spirits up, a Vermonter will look for signs of spring, sometimes in the most unlikely places. One leading indicator of brighter days ahead is a phenomenon known as the frost heave. As temperatures rise, highways begin to buckle, producing humps in the road that rattle your teeth and mangle your shocks. Highway workers post bright orange signs to warn drivers of upcoming frost heaves. To a Vermonter, these signs are like the first flowers in bloom. As the seasonal changes unfold, the frost heaves recede and the paved roads return to their more normal state. Unfortunately, that is often a state of disrepair. Bridges share this sorry condition, due to effects of weather, wear and tear. The cure is major maintenance, reconstruction or replacement. But that costs money, a lot of money. For more than the 3 years now, we have been working to reauthorize the highway program--because our transportation challenges are many. The bill before us is a good one, it may not include all the funding it deserves, but it does move us forward. This bill addresses many very important issues facing our roads and highways. Safety is my highest priority. Last year, Vermont experienced the highest number of fatalities on its highways since 1998. Ninety-seven people died in automobile crashes, up from 69 in 2003. Nationally, we have made real progress on highway safety over the last 10 years. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the rate of fatalities has declined from 1.9 to 1.5 deaths per million vehicle miles traveled. But the number of fatalities has held steady at roughly 42,000 per year. That number is unacceptable. This bill is not only an investment in our highways, it is an investment in public safety. And we know congestion in this country is bad and getting worse. Congestion costs Americans more than $69.5 billion annually in lost time and productivity; 5.7 billion gallons of fuel are wasted each year while motorists sit in traffic. One way to reduce congestion. is to move goods by freight and we are moving more freight in this country than ever before. The forecast for future demand is daunting, with U.S. DOT projecting that the volume of freight will increase 70 percent by 2020. This bill will expand freight capacity through new partnerships, investments and market financing techniques. The highway program expired nearly 2 years ago, and the States have been operating under series of short-term extensions. This has disrupted construction programs, delayed safety improvements and interrupted funding to transit operators. It is time to act on this bill. The next sign of spring in Vermont after the frost heave is something known as mud season. You can tell from the name that it's not a lot of fun. Moving a highway bill over the coming weeks will feel at times like mud season but at the other end a brighter day. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Frist for the opportunity to debate this important legislation. I also thank Senator Reid for his leadership in getting us to where we are today on this bill. In addition, I thank Chairman Inhofe, Senators Bond, and Baucus, as well as other chairmen and ranking members for all of their hard work and cooperation on this legislation. A little over a year ago, I stood before my colleagues, in the same place I am standing now, asking for their support of our Nation's surface transportation system. I am hopeful now, as I was then, that we will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to pass this legislation quickly so our states can proceed with their critical work. Today we are in a similar situation as we were a year ago. Our bill maintains the important principles that were developed over the years of work in our committees. We continue to grow and support the core programs that are the building block of a strong transportation system. We maintain flexibility for States, because they know best how to meet their needs. We also try to increase the funds going out to the States. This bill will enhance safety on our Nation's highways through education, better infrastructure, and enforcement. The increased intermodal flexibility set forth in the bill will allow States, if they wish to improve freight handling and movement. The growth in congestion mitigation and air quality funding will help States improve air quality, reduce pollution and address congestion. The bill makes it easier for States to mitigate project effects on habitat and wetlands, and retains and expands popular programs such as enhancements recreational trails and scenic byways. This bill also reduces congestion on our Nation's roadways by enhancing public transportation and promoting intermodal solutions to regional transportation problems. These are all critical components to a successful bill and I am glad that, through much hard work, we were able to develop strong national policy. It may not be exactly what any one Member would have crafted on his or her own, but this is a strong and unified step in the right direction. There are, however, some key differences. A year ago, we presented you with a well-funded bill that struck a delicate balance between the core programs and flexibility on program and modal spending at the State and local level. This time our job was made more difficult by fiscal constraints insisted upon by the administration. The White House has suggested an overall funding level for surface transportation of $284 billion over 6 years. This despite the President's own Transportation Department saying we need at least $300 billion to simply maintain the status quo, and something well above that level to make progress on conditions and performance. Last year the Senate passed a highway bill at $318 billion with 76 votes. It is unfortunate that the President fails to see the value of a robust transportation program. It is unfortunate the President fails to see the jobs that will be lost, and the roads and bridges that will go unrepaired and unbuilt. It is unfortunate the President doesn't see the lives that could be saved with better roads and the time that will be wasted sitting in traffic. All of this is the result of inadequate funding. While my colleagues and I have continued to impress upon him the value of increased funding, we continue to work within the box that the administration has put us in. We tried to meet everyone's needs while not neglecting our responsibilities to the highway trust fund. This is a very difficult task given the restrictions this administration has imposed on us. But we did what was asked of us. All of the committees have acted and passed a bill at $284 billion. Make no mistake--we have made sacrifices that none of us wanted. I am hopeful we will increase the funding in this bill as we move it through the Senate in the coming days. That said, I stand here before you with the structure of a bill that has the potential to move our transportation system forward--not the giant leap we had hoped to make but meager steps that I hope will be the first of many in helping us get where we need to go. Mr. President, I need not remind you that the authorization for this program expired 19 months ago. In that time, there have been nearly 70,000 traffic fatalities with an economic cost of over $370 billion. Americans continue to sit in traffic for close to 50 hours a year, 10 minutes more per hour traveled than when the last reauthorization bill was passed. Mr. President, 18 percent of our roads are in poor or mediocre condition; 29 percent of bridges are deficient or functionally obsolete; over a quarter of our transit facilities are in below average condition; more than 3 million jobs are waiting to be created. While we neglect to act, transportation in this country continues to degrade. Things are getting worse, not better. We have lost one construction season and are on our way to missing another. In northern States such as Vermont, this is not a little problem. It is a big one. We must act on this legislation now. We must pass a nationwide surface transportation reauthorization bill this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues to debate H.R. 3 on the Senate floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the pending Mikulski amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk about the amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland. As a cosponsor of that amendment, I rise in support of this amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. The Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act, on which this amendment is based, is very important to my State of Vermont. This amendment will ensure the seasonal businesses in our country have the workers they need to support their company, our local economics, and to help the U.S. economy flourish. Action on this critical issue is long overdue. In March of last year, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced they had received enough petitions to meet the cap on the H-2B visas. As a result, they stopped accepting petitions for these temporary work visas halfway through the Federal fiscal year. This announcement was a shock to many businesses throughout the country that depend on foreign workers to fill their temporary and seasonal positions. Tourism is the largest sector of Vermont's economy and, as a result, many Vermont businesses hire seasonal staff during their summer, winter, or fall seasons. Last year, I heard from many Vermont businesses that were unable to employ foreign workers for their summer and fall seasons because the cap had been reached. Not only was this unexpected, but many of the individuals were people who had been returning to the same employer year after year. These employers lost essential staff and, in many cases, well-trained, experienced employees. While I am proud to say that Vermont businesses have risen to this challenge with hard work and creativity in the past, the need for these workers has not, and will not, diminish. Congress must act and must act now. The companies I have heard from are proud of the work their staffs have done under these circumstances. Yet they believe their businesses and their personnel will suffer if they are not able to employ seasonal foreign workers again this year. Many foresee a devastating effect on their businesses if they are not able to bring in foreign workers soon. I have also heard from Vermont businesses that they had to lay off or not hire American workers because they could not find enough employees to round out their crews. Without having the sufficient number of workers to complete projects, they could not hire or maintain their year-round staff. They also could not bid on projects and many had to scale back their operations. In these instances, the lack of seasonal workers had a detrimental effect on our economy and on the employment of American workers. As many may know, I strongly believe American workers must be given the opportunity to fill jobs and that this Nation's strength is in its own workforce. However, the companies that have contacted me did their utmost to find Americans for positions available. Efforts to find American workers included working closely with the State of Vermont's Employment and Training Office, increasing wages and benefits, and implementing aggressive, year-round recruiting. We are lucky in Vermont to count tourism among our chief industries, and we have our beautiful rural landscape to thank for the visitors who flock to our small State each year. While many Vermont businesses were able to survive last year, thanks to that old Yankee ingenuity, I am not optimistic about this year. It is imperative we immediately address this problem in order to prevent further harm to this Nation's small businesses and the economy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment by Senator Mikulski. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 430

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Bush administration has decided that all funding for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan be requested as supplemental emergency funding. I believe, therefore, that we must include in this supplemental funding legislation, additional monies to cover the cost of the war incurred by the Veterans Administration. The President's budget did not request sufficient funding to cover the significant increases in medical costs of veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. While severely wounded service members are remaining longer in the Department of Defense health care system than in past conflicts, the VA provides all care for these men and women after they are released from the military, and provides care to Guard members and Reservists beginning immediately after they return home from a deployment. We must cover these expenses. We cannot turn away these veterans. We also cannot turn away other veterans and deny them care in deference to the newest veterans. That would not be right either. I am pleased to join Senators Murray and Akaka in offering this amendment to provide $1.9 billion in additional funding to the Veterans Administration. Passage of this amendment would go a long way to covering existing shortfalls and allowing the VA to ramp up to meet the current and expected needs for the coming year. I am pleased that this amendment addresses the critical issue of mental health by providing $525 million specifically for mental health care and treatment. Unlike prior wars, where soldiers were expected to lay down their guns upon returning home and forget about the war, service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan understand that it is very important for their mental health and the well-being of their family, that they deal with both the mental effects of the war and the emotional effects on their families of a long and stressful separation. Vet centers exist all across the country to help veterans and their families deal with the ghosts of war and manage the transition back home. These centers do a phenomenal job, but they are generally very small and have been handling a limited case load. With veterans returning from Iraq in huge numbers, particularly members of the National Guard and Reserve who do not live on or near military bases the job of the Vet centers has increased more than a hundred-fold. The Vet centers need an increase in both staff and resources commensurate with the demands now placed upon them. We have learned from prior wars that much can be done to ease the transition back to civilian life if it is done immediately. Immediate mental health care can prevent the onset of more difficult diagnoses, such as post traumatic stress disorder. The VA has developed expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD, well beyond that of the private sector. The challenge now is to spread this expertise throughout the VA system. This takes resources. We also have learned that those soldiers who have suffered physical wounds will often need ongoing mental health assistance to face the challenges of life with a disability. We must not turn our backs on them. The bill before the Senate is designed to cover the costs of these two conflicts. We cannot say we have done so if we do not cover the costs of the physical and emotional wounds from these conflicts. The only way that this can be done with the funding provided by the President's budget is if our obligations to other veterans are set aside. This would be wrong. The only way we can truly honor our obligations to all of our veterans is to support the amendment by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, one of my first responsibilities when I arrived in the Senate was to recommend to the first President Bush a nominee for a district court seat. But while I was a relatively new Senator, this was in some respects a fairly easy task. My predecessor in the Senate, Bob Stafford, had established a sound and fair process with Senator Leahy for choosing candidates for the judiciary, which we have continued to this day with the participation of Governor Douglas, a Republican. Vermont is a small State, but it is one with an outsized capacity for public service. Our best lawyers have been willing to accept the financial sacrifice that accompanies serving on the bench. And as a small State, I think it is fairly easy to agree on who the best candidates might be, even though you invariably pass over many very qualified individuals. Finally, I guess I should say that I was born to it. My father, Olin Jeffords, was a judge the entire time I was growing up. In fact, he was chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. He was widely respected, not just by his son, but by our community locally and by the legal community throughout the State. That respect was entirely unremarkable. It reflected the appreciation of the importance of an independent judiciary stocked with able and committed individuals. My first job following the Navy and law school was as a clerk for Judge Ernest Gibson, Jr., of Vermont. Judge Gibson, a Republican, had resigned as Governor of the State of Vermont in order to accept Harry Truman's offer of nomination to the Federal bench. Judge Gibson could have followed any path in life he wanted. He returned from service in the South Pacific during World War II a hero, and with some fame stemming from having played a role in the rescue of Lieutenant John F. Kennedy and the other survivors of PT-109. As a young boy, I idolized him and the other heroes returning from the Pacific. To work for him years later was an incredible honor. So having been around the judiciary all of my life, it was not especially daunting when it came time early in my Senate career to nominate an individual to the Federal district court. The late Fred I. Parker was not only the best candidate for the job, he was also a man I had hired to work with me when I served as attorney general and who had become a close friend over the years. To know Fred was to love him. Years later, when a vacancy on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals opened up, President Clinton nominated Fred to the position to which he was confirmed and served with distinction until his passing. These three men--a father, a mentor, and a friend--would probably be the first to admit that they were more typical than exceptional of the caliber of individuals that comprise the judiciary. Fred worked hard to pay his way through school, often in the plumbing trade with his father. He was forever mindful of his father's advice that whenever he started becoming convinced of his own importance, he should stick his fist in a bucket of water to see the kind of impression he would leave. So I take it very personally when politicians seek to score points by attacking the judiciary. These men had and have families, just like today's judges in Florida and Georgia and Illinois. The only thing we should be doing is condemning violence directed against the judiciary, not rationalizing it or implicitly encouraging it. Of course, my colleagues will not agree with every decision made by the judiciary. My good friend Fred Parker struck down part of the Brady law that I had supported. I might have disagreed with him, but I never would have questioned his motives or integrity. The first lesson we teach children when they enter competitive sports is to respect the referee, even if we think he might have made the wrong call. If our children can understand this, why can't our political leaders? We shouldn't be throwing rhetorical hand grenades. Vermonters are proud of their long history of smart, independent, forward-thinking judges. These men and women have shown the true spirit of the judiciary and upheld the law and Constitution, even if it was against what was the popular will at the time. This is what the judiciary was designed to be, a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches. Our Founding Fathers were concerned that the legislative and executive branches of our Government could be too swayed by public opinion and not uphold the rights of Americans because of political pressure. The judiciary was designed to be independent and make sure that the law and the Constitution were followed even if it went against public opinion. I am also concerned with the threat of the majority to take what is the so- called nuclear option. Our form of government is founded on a system of checks and balances, which serves to protect the rights of all individuals. The right in the Senate to unlimited debate is an important part of our system of checks and balances and ensures that on important, critical issues a bipartisan consensus is reached of more than a bare minimum majority of Senators. I sincerely hope that cooler heads will begin to prevail and my colleagues will tone down the rhetoric they have been using to smear the integrity of the judiciary, and the Republican leadership will reject the divisive and unprecedented so-called nuclear option. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President. I rise before you in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the very first chapter of Vietnam Veterans of America, which was founded and nurtured in my home town of Rutland, VT. A quarter-century ago, Vietnam veterans, their families and loved ones were suffering the slings and arrows of anti-Vietnam war sentiment that gripped our Nation. Scant recognition was given to the personal and professional sacrifices of these valiant American young men and women during their service to our country. Officially there was a great deal of denial of the unwarranted price, both physical and emotional, that had been paid by these veterans. It would be decades before post- traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, would be a recognized condition. Many years would also pass before the Federal Government would admit that use of Agent Orange had left a terrible legacy of extreme suffering for our veterans and their families. The founders of the Vietnam Veterans of America recognized an honor- bound duty as an organization to speak directly to these grave needs. The outpouring of enthusiasm from the veterans themselves demonstrated to all Americans the depth of these convictions. In 1979, during a trip to Vermont, Vietnam Veterans of America founder Bobby Mueller met the late Don Bodette. Don supported the notion of an organization of and for Vietnam-era veterans, but felt that it would only be truly successful if they mobilized locally and established chapters. The power of Don's logic and commitment persuaded Bobby Mueller to adopt this model. On April 13, 1980, Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter One was established in Rutland, VT. Taking up the challenge, Don was joined by Jake Jacobsen, Albert and Mary Trombley, Mike Dodge, Dennis Ross, Clark Howland and Mark Truhan, to name a few. Over the years, Vietnam Veterans of America has won huge victories in the fight for fair treatment for Vietnam veterans, and has helped ensure that no other class of veteran will ever get that same treatment. The Vietnam Veterans of America's legacy includes recognition of the effects of Agent Orange and other chemical agents of war, the growing body of science around PTSD diagnosis, and aggressive programs to aid the veteran in the struggle to reintegrate after hostilities. All subsequent veterans benefit from the expertise that has been developed by the staff of the Vietnam Veterans of America and their continuing effectiveness in pushing for better funding for VA health care, higher quality service delivery and respect in the community. In closing, I would like to add my thanks for the tremendous work done by the Vietnam Veterans of America national and local organizations. As a Vietnam-era veteran myself, we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter One's visionary founders and the steadfast members who have followed their lead. Thank you for your outstanding service to your fellow veterans and our country. Happy 25th birthday, Chapter One. May you have many more.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, a Federal budget is about setting priorities, and the priorities contained in this budget are all wrong. About a year ago, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, described the President's budget as ``faith-based.'' Faith-based tax cuts were going to generate faith-based revenues, and we were all going to be better off. Well, the deficit is skyrocketing, interest rates are going up, and additional revenues haven't magically appeared. If the budget before us were to pass unchanged, the deficit would increase each and every year for the foreseeable future. Vermonters understand that this is a burden we don't want to pass on to our grandchildren. We have fallen into a borrowing pattern that makes this Yankee cringe. But let me emphasize that the deficits that we are now facing are primarily caused by a drop in revenues, not by wasteful spending on such things as education, veterans' benefits, and Amtrak. We could eliminate all of the Federal Government's discretionary spending outside of defense and we would still have a deficit. On the mandatory side of the budget, I agree that we need to get a handle on increases in Medicaid spending and the pressures on Social Security due to the aging baby boom generation. But this budget fails to confront these challenges and in the case of Social Security pretends there is no problem. How can we pass a budget that ignores the cost of the Iraq War after September 30? How can we pass a budget that includes more tax cuts for the few, but doesn't budget for the reform of the alternative minimum tax or the President's own Social Security proposal? How can we pass a budget that forces us to ``pay for'' any increases in programs for our neediest citizens but doesn't require us to ``pay for'' tax cuts for the well-to-do? If we are to reinstate the pay-as- you-go rule, then it should, as it always has, include paying for both new spending and new tax cuts. Speaking of tax cuts, I have grown very tired of the economic doublespeak now in fashion. If tax cuts were the policy of choice when we had large surpluses, and they are still the policy of choice when we now have large deficits, when if ever are tax cuts not the appropriate policy? Perhaps the families in Vermont who used up their heating assistance funds before winter was over, or the veteran on a waiting list for a medical procedure at a VA hospital, would prefer an increase in government spending to a tax cut. Priorities, it is all about priorities. We are 2 years into a war. American service men and women continue to come home with horrific wounds, both physical and mental. While the Department of Defense is keeping wounded soldiers in its medical system for longer periods of time and is shouldering a greater share of the costs, the long-term costs of health care and rehabilitation still fall heaviest on the Veterans Administration. This budget responds by underfunding the VA by almost $16 billion over the next 5 years. How can we do this in the midst of a war? How can the President in good conscience insist on maintaining large numbers of troops in Iraq, and yet refuse to provide for the health care needs of veterans? This is unacceptable. This budget drastically cuts the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program and other programs that our communities rely on. These programs now benefit so many Vermonters who struggle to make ends meet. This budget would consolidate 18 programs, including the CDBG, and slashes their funding by 34 percent. In Vermont, this budget would most harshly affect middle and low-income citizens by making safe and affordable housing unattainable, ending quality childcare programs, and compromising nutrition assistance. Funding for these important economic development programs must be restored. I am very concerned that agriculture, conservation, and food assistance programs are faced with drastic cuts in funding. The Milk Income Loss Contract Program, MILC, which the President saw fit to include in his proposed budget, has been left out of this budget resolution. The MILC Program is necessary to help family farmers through tough times when milk prices are low. This budget would also seriously compromise conservation programs that are used to restore our land and clean our water. Perhaps most unsettling will be the cuts to food assistance and nutrition programs, including food stamps. In Vermont, 30 percent of children live in low- income households that depend on food stamps for their basic needs and the medical safety net for their healthcare. Vermont, together with States throughout the Nation, is facing a serious budget shortfall in providing the most basic level of healthcare to our most vulnerable citizens. Instead of facing that fact and providing temporary fiscal assistance to the States, the President called for billions of dollars in cuts in the Medicaid program, which the Senate fortunately rejected. I am most disappointed that the Senate did not vote to provide additional funding for the Nation's water infrastructure. Spending on environmental programs from the national parks to programs that keep our water, land, and air clean will have to be reduced if this budget is enacted. Priorities, it is all about priorities. Even though education amendments passed, which I supported, that added money back to the Senate budget proposal, that is still insufficient to adequately fund important Federal education initiatives. I remain concerned that the budget resolution will eliminate funding for several key education programs, such as the $1.3 billion Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. This is especially depressing since just last week the Senate, on a vote of 99-0, passed the Perkins bill. Then just a few days later, no funding is provided in the budget to carry out the program that was just passed. In addition, the budget proposal does not provide the meaningful increases necessary to carry out the 4-year-old No Child Left Behind Act and the updated IDEA law that was enacted last December. President Bush often mentions that education is a priority. He and I obviously define priority differently. To me, priority means you pay for the promises you make. I do not believe priority means you sign laws requiring more accountability to improve student performance, and then, in the next breath, send up a budget that doesn't provide the dollars needed to carry out the purposes of those laws. I have spent a substantial part of my career calling for the full funding of special education. When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was enacted in 1975, Congress promised to pay 40 percent of the cost. In the current fiscal year, Congress will finance only 19 percent of the program, forcing States and localities to make up the difference. I have tried to fulfill this promise in each of the last few years by making IDEA funding mandatory. The President and his allies have said that mandatory funding is not necessary, that we can meet the promise of IDEA by increasing funding by $1 billion each year. In this budget, IDEA funding is increased by only half of that amount. This budget tells our children, their parents, and our local taxpayers that they are not a priority, and that we will not keep our word. There is no question we are living through difficult budgetary times and savings must be sought at every opportunity. But we must not delude the American people into thinking that we can cut taxes, fight wars overseas, improve education, take care of our environment, and repair the Nation's transportation and water infrastructure all at the same time. I could not support the budget resolution because it did not adequately fund important domestic programs and promote tax cuts to the detriment of other priorities. At the same time, it did little to put our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Middlebury College women's ice hockey team on its recent victory in the NCAA Division III National Championship against Elmira College. This is the second straight national championship for the Panthers and their fourth in the past 6 years. Over 120 years ago, Middlebury College began admitting female students, decades before many similar institutions were willing to do so. Since that time, Middlebury has offered young men and women alike a superb liberal arts education amidst the beauty of the Green Mountains. Reflecting Middlebury's proud and pioneering tradition of academic excellence and coeducation, the women's athletic program at Middlebury has developed into one of the best Division III athletics. Over the last 10 years, women's athletic teams at Middlebury have captured 13 national titles. The women's hockey team has been one of the most consistently successful athletic teams at Middlebury. In the 2005 national championship, the Panthers exhibited their characteristic spirit and determination by overcoming an early 2-1 deficit to win by a final 4-3. I am pleased our local schoolchildren have the opportunity to see such accomplished and impressive student-athletes competing in Vermont. I congratulate each member of the team: Head Coach Bill Mandigo, Assistant Coach Jean Butler, Team Trainer Rachel Eldredge, Team Physician Mark Peluso, Abby Kurtz-Phelan, Shannon Tarrant, Emily McNamara, Rose Babst, Liz Yale-Loehr, Allison Liati, Karen Levin, Gillian Paul, Shannon Sylvester, Emily Quizon, Jackie Cohen, Lindsay Jones, Tory MacNeil, Gloria Velez, Alison Graddock, Margaret MacDonald, Samantha Ritt, Lacey Farrell, Ellen Sargent, Lorna Gifis, Tania Kenny, Kerry Kiley, Abby Smith, Angie Todd, Nina Daugherty, and Kate Kogut. Again, congratulations Panthers on another national championship, I wish you all the best next year.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Middlebury College men's ice hockey team on its March 19, 2005 victory in the NCAA Division III National Championship against St. Thomas University. This is the second straight national championship for the Panthers and their seventh in the past 11 years. For more than two centuries, Middlebury College has offered students a top-notch liberal arts education. Best known for its academic excellence and its picturesque campus, Middlebury also boasts a highly regarded athletic program that complements its educational mission and helps facilitate a great collegiate experience for all Middlebury students. Over 25 percent of all undergraduates at the college participate in varsity sports and Middlebury has worn an astonishing 24 national titles in just over a decade. During this past hockey season, the Panthers represented Middlebury with hard work and determination on the ice. The accomplishments of the student-athletes were rewarded by a loyal fan base that packed the Chip Kenyon Arena night after night to watch great college hockey. Along with the thousands of Middlebury hockey fans, I am proud to have such an impressive college hockey team playing in the State of Vermont. I congratulate each member of the team: Head Coach Bill Beaney, Assistant Coach Chris LaPerle, Student Assistant Coach Ryan Cahill, Team Manager Ryan McQuillan, Team Trainer David Matthews, Team Physician Mark Peluso, Ross Cherry, Tom Maldonado, Jed McDonald, Levi Doria, Scott Ward, Tim Graham, Mickey Gilchrist, Darwin Hunt, Patrick Nugent, Eric LeFreniere, Justin Gaines, Evgeny Saidachev, Robert MacIntyre, Shady Young, Jeff Smith, Brett Shirreffs, John Sales, Leonard Badeau, Brian Phinney, Richie Fuld, Yen-I Chen, Jocko DeCarolis, Samuel Driver, and Scott Bartlett. Again, congratulations Panthers on another incredible season and good luck next year.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Akaka amendment #149 to add desperately needed funds to this budget for veterans health care. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. The spending level in this budget for veterans health care defies logic. We are 2 years into a war. Yet this budget fails to provide adequate resources for those who have served this country so valiantly. American servicemembers are wounded in Iraq each day. Thanks to new advances in battlefield medicine, more wounded soldiers than ever before live to return home. But in a greater percentage of cases, they come home with horrific wounds, both visible and invisible. The Department of Defense should be commended for keeping wounded soldiers in its medical system for longer periods of time and for shouldering a greater share of the costs. However, the long-term costs of health care and rehabilitation still fall heaviest on the Veterans Administration. This budget responds to those needs by underfunding the VA by almost $16 billion over the next 5 years. This is simply not acceptable! Over the past year, unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserve troops have been mobilized. When these Guard members and Reservists come off active duty, they are entitled to 2 years of access to the VA health care system. In my home State of Vermont, over 1400 National Guard members have been called to active duty. While I am incredibly proud of the White River Junction VA Hospital, which has done award-winning work in their field, even they cannot be expected to handle this new influx of veterans without additional funding. We owe it to both the veterans and the VA employees to provide them with the funding and services they require. The Akaka amendment would provide an additional $2.85 billion to the VA for just this mission. A significant number of Iraq veterans have complex and long-term care issues. Improved body armor has saved many lives, but among the wounded, we now see a higher percentage of lost limbs and head injuries. These traumatic injuries have a significant emotional component to their care. It has been estimated that as many as one- third of all returning service members have some type of mental health needs. VA hospitals are working hard to ensure these needs are met immediately, before they develop into more serious manifestations such as post traumatic stress disorder. It has become increasingly clear that we need a better understanding of the emotional and mental health aspects of both the war and traumatic injury. I believe that we must increase VA research on mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder, research that is critical to both the Department of Defense and veterans health care. The National Center on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is doing excellent work along these lines, but a great deal remains to be done. We must pass the Akaka amendment if we hope to do better on this score. The Budget Committee thankfully removed two provisions from the President's budget that have caused a great deal of concern among veterans. The President proposed to charge some veterans a $250 fee just to enroll in the VA health care system. The President also put forward an increase in the co-pay for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. I am pleased that the Budget Committee saw the error in both of these provisions, and cut them out of its budget. Mr. President, it is critical that we pass the Akaka amendment. This should not be a partisan vote. Support for our troops is not a partisan matter. Taking care of their health care needs should not be a partisan issue either. If we cannot come together on this fundamental issue of fairness, what can we agree on? For the sake of our veterans, and in honor of their service, I urge all my colleagues to support the Akaka amendment. We owe our veterans this, and more.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I stand today to speak in support of Senator Byrd's amendment to restore funding for Amtrak. The amendment would increase funding for Amtrak by $200 million over last year's level of $1.2 billion. Starving Amtrak into bankruptcy may appear to be the quick and easy solution to the bleak picture that some have imposed upon this fundamental element of America's transportation system. Nonetheless I remain convinced that the simplest and most effective answer lies with the amendment before us. I join my esteemed colleague Senator Byrd to insist that we fully fund rail travel in this country and guarantee Amtrak the opportunity to secure its future in the 21st century. In just over three decades, Amtrak has grown to encompass a passenger rail network that connects 46 States, including my home State of Vermont. Through the years Amtrak has stood resilient in the face of financial peril and today it carries 24 million passengers annually and employs 22,000 Americans. Amtrak serves a diverse ridership that depends on the continued existence of safe and reliable transportation. Amtrak shuttles commuters to their jobs, brings college students home for the holidays, and increases mobility for the elderly and the disabled. In urban areas, passenger rail relieves traffic on overcrowded highways. In rural States like Vermont, passenger rail ensures access to metropolitan centers and provides public transportation to regions where it might otherwise be too costly or unavailable. As fuel prices remain unstable and our Nation's highways and airports suffer ever-increasing congestion and delays, Amtrak offers an invaluable alternative upon which Americans have come to rely. I think one of my Vermont constituents expressed this sentiment best in a letter I recently received. Colby Crehan of Burlington, Vermont wrote of her Amtrak trip across the United States: ``I was able to travel safely and comfortably on a train while seeing the beautiful landscape that covers so much of this country. Amtrak introduced me to the rest of America in a way that a car or plane trip could never do. These trips confirmed my feeling that train travel is the safest, most convenient and relaxing way to travel perhaps you can share my story.'' Our choice today is clear. We can forfeit our prior investments and the investments of State and local governments back home, or we can uphold our responsibility to ensure that passenger rail remains an integral part of our Nation's transportation system. The future of passenger rail in this country belongs in the hands of Congress, not in the bankruptcy courts. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I too support this order and I want to thank my colleagues on both the EPW Committee and Armed Services for working together on this joint request.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Tom Brennan on an outstanding career as the head coach of the men's basketball team at the University of Vermont. As he departs UVM after 19 years, I wish to recognize the contribution he has made to both the University and to the State of Vermont. Tom began his distinguished career at UVM in 1986. Within just 5 years, in 1991, he was named the America East Coach of the Year, the first of three times he would receive that honor. Throughout his tenure at UVM, Tom worked to improve the basketball program, which became one of the best in the America East under his watch. Tom also became a local favorite on the airwaves as the cohost of ``Corm and the Coach,'' a morning radio show that makes us all appreciate just how hard life can be for Tom's opposing coaches. In recent years, UVM basketball has been marked by enthusiastic support throughout Vermont and sold-out crowds at Patrick Gym as Tom guided the Catamounts to unprecedented success. In both 2003 and 2004, the Cats captured the America East Championship and secured a trip to the NCAA tournament. On Saturday, the Cats will play for their third straight America East Championship and third straight trip to the NCAA tournament. Tom will retire with at least 262 career victories at UVM, more than any basketball coach in school history. Cats fans everywhere have grown to respect and admire Tom for the results he produced on the court, the integrity of the program he led, and the character of the young men he helped to shape. Patrick Gym will not be the same without Tom Brennan on the sidelines. I wish him the best as he begins the next chapter of his life.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the United States. Last Congress, in August of 2003, nearly 50 million people in the Northeast and Midwest were affected by a massive power outage. This event emphasized the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages. We must act to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. That is why I am introducing this bill today to ensure greater reliability in our electricity delivery system. My bill, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005, will help achieve reliability and security of the electricity grid in an efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally sound manner. It does so by creating mandatory, nationwide electric reliability standards. The bill also mandates regional coordination in the siting of transmission facilities, and provides $10 billion dollars in loan guarantees to finance ``smart grid'' technologies that improve the way the grid transmits power. While a $10 billion dollar investment may seem to be a large investment, it is significantly less than the transmission cost estimates that have circulated following the Northeast blackout. Industry experts estimated that it would cost consumers as much as $100 billion dollars to upgrade transmission systems and site new lines to meet future reliability needs. However, even this hefty price tag does not factor in the costs of additional generation, does not consider the rising cost of natural gas due to increasing electricity consumption, and does not include the environmental and other social costs of continued expansion of our presently centralized power system. Power lines are expensive and are rarely welcomed by the nearby public. The loan guarantees in the bill will help balance the need for new transmission lines by providing federal resources to help improve existing ones. In addition to addressing system operation and transmission needs, the bill also promotes sound system management. It establishes a Federal system benefits fund as a match for state programs. Historically, regulated electric utility companies have provided a number of energy-related public services beyond simply supplying electricity that benefit the system as a whole. Such services have included bill payment assistance and energy conservation measures for low-income households, energy efficiency programs for residential and business customers, and pilot programs to promote renewable energy resources. More than 20 states, including my home state of Vermont, have public benefits programs. This bill will provide needed federal matching money to States for these programs. Our states can use these funds. They will be able to move more quickly to deploy these low-cost strategies with federal help. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that a federal program to match existing state public benefits programs would save 1.24 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity over 20 years, and cut consumer energy bills by about $100 billion dollars. Mr. President, my bill, which has the potential to save consumers $100 billion dollars is far preferable to raising consumer electricity bills by the $100 billion dollars to raise money for grid expansion. My Vermont constituents would prefer to keep the lights on, and their money in their own pockets. The bill also establishes energy efficiency performance standards for utilities. The United States has experienced tremendous growth in electricity consumption over the past decade. Current estimates are that electricity consumption is increasing at roughly 2 percent per year. Between 1993 and 1999, U.S. summer peak electricity use alone increased by 95,000 megawatts. This is the equivalent of adding a new, six-state New England to the nation's electricity demand every fourteen months. Energy experts estimate that as much as 50 percent of expected new demand over the next 20 years can be met through consumer efficiency and load management programs. Over the past two decades, utility demand-side efficiency programs have avoided the need for more than 100 300-megawatt power plants. However, with the advent of electricity deregulation, utility spending on these efficiency programs has dropped by almost half. The federal government should seek to correct this trend, and this bill takes a strong first step in that direction by phasing in a requirement that utilities reduce their peak demand for power and their customers' power use between 2006 and 2015. Finally, the bill enacts standards that enable increased on-site, or distributed, generation to reduce pressure on the grid and lessen the impact of a blackout should one occur. We have an obligation, Mr. President, to ensure that the electricity grid is secure. We currently have a giant system consisting of almost 200,000 miles of interconnecting lines that constantly shift huge amounts of electricity throughout the country. Such a giant and complex system, traversing miles of city and countryside, is inevitably subject to unforseen problems. Simply making it bigger will never take away all uncertainty, nor can it eliminate the vulnerability of the grid to sabotage or terrorist attack. We should do all we can to make certain such vulnerabilities are reduced. In summary, I am introducing this legislation because I feel that we should be cautious in our assumptions that the answer to our nation's reliability woes lies primarily in building a bigger, more expansive grid. Simply building more transmission lines is not the answer. Investments in energy efficiency and on-site generation can significantly improve the reliability of the nation's electricity grid and in most cases will be cheaper, faster to implement and more environmentally friendly than large-scale grid expansion. We also must fill the regulatory gaps in the system, which my bill does. Congress should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. In addition, no national reliability program will be effective or complete without strong incentives for demand-side management programs for efficiency and for on-site generation. We cannot solve today's energy problems with yesterday's solutions. My bill is an innovative approach to ensuring electric reliability by maximizing energy efficiency, regulatory efficiency, and efficient investment. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we cannot afford to do otherwise. I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to advance energy security and reliability in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2005 to accelerate the use of clean, domestic renewable energy sources as an integral part of our Nation's electrical generation. A recent episode of the television show, West Wing, portrayed renewable energy as science fiction. The truth is closer to Reality TV. Eighteen States, plus the District of Columbia, have already instituted minimum renewable standards. This bill would establish a national renewable portfolio standard requiring that, by the year 2020, 20 percent of U.S. electricity be derived from clean, domestically produced renewable energy including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and wave energy. As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I think obtaining 20 percent of our country's electricity from renewable energy represents the modest end of what we could achieve. Let me offer five reasons why I believe we need a national commitment to encourage renewable power. First, renewable power would help consumers by reducing electricity prices. According to data provided by the Bush administration's Energy Department, a 20 percent renewables requirement similar to that set forth in the bill I am introducing today would lower consumer energy costs by the year 2020. Why? Because adding additional renewables to our energy mix will decrease the pressure on natural gas supplies, bringing overall costs down. This point is worth repeating. Despite concerns from those in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, the Department of Energy has consistently found that a mandatory renewable portfolio standard would not raise overall energy costs and would have no significant adverse impact on America's wallets. Estimates are that reaching 10 percent renewable energy production by the year 2020 could reduce the demand for natural gas by as much as 1.4 trillion cubic feet, and could reduce the price of natural gas by 6 percent. With the higher renewable portfolio standard in my bill, the price reductions are even greater. I have received letters from the chemical industry expressing deep concern about the high price of natural gas, and imploring me to take steps to help alleviate shortages and reduce costs. Much to my consternation, however, neither the chemical industry, nor this administration have addressed the obvious link between increasing renewable energy production and easing demand on natural gas supplies. Instead, their solutions have been to open sensitive lands to more drilling, reduce environmental compliance and advance clean coal technologies. Whatever merits there may be to some of their suggestions, an obvious step that should be taken is diversifying our energy sector and easing the growing demand on natural gas by promoting other clean energies which can be readily produced on American soil. The second reason for a national commitment to encourage renewable power is the public health and environmental benefits. Electricity generation is the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions, accounting for over 40 percent of the total. Carbon dioxide emissions are the primary greenhouse gas, contributing to harmful climate change. A 20 percent renewables requirement would, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, reduce carbon emissions from power plants by up to 18 percent by the year 2020. A 20 percent renewables requirement would also significantly reduce emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contaminate our water, cause smog and acid rain, and contribute to respiratory illnesses. As a result, a renewable portfolio standard would help alleviate asthma, which has become the most common chronic disease for children. Coal burning electric power plants are also the largest source of mercury pollution, releasing an estimated 98,000 pounds of mercury directly into the air, and generating an additional 80,000 pounds a year in mercury tainted waste. A renewable portfolio standard would help the estimated five million women and children regularly exposed to mercury at levels that EPA considers unsafe. And according to the Department of Energy, these public health benefits would be achieved without raising consumer energy costs. Third, a 20 percent renewable portfolio standard would enhance our national security by diversifying our energy supply. As we increase our reliance on natural gas, much of the demand may have to be met by liquified natural gas shipped to the U.S. from other countries. It is unthinkable that we should sink to greater reliance on foreign fuel imports when we have abundant, inexhaustible renewable energy right here. Further, much of the U.S. energy system including power plants, refineries, and pipelines, present significant safety and security risks. Renewable energy facilities are generally smaller, more geographically dispersed and do not involve disposal or transportation of radioactive or combustible materials. A 20 percent renewable portfolio standard such as I offer today will help bring the costs of on-site generation down even further, making providing your own electricity a reality for a growing number of homes and facilities. In these times when we worry about the potential security of our energy grid, that option becomes increasingly attractive. Fourth, a national renewable portfolio standard builds on the successful experiments by the States. To date, 18 States, plus the District of Columbia, have adopted mandatory renewable energy standards. These State programs provide excellent incentives for renewable energy. In September 2004, New York created the second- largest new renewable energy market in the country, behind only California, when the state Public Service Commission adopted a standard of 24 percent by 2013. Earlier in 2004, Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode Island also enacted minimum renewable electricity standards. Texas has one of the most successful state programs. The Texas Renewable portfolio standard was signed into law by then Governor George W. Bush, and administered by Pat Wood, who now chairs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These men know the value of renewable energy. Texas now has enough wind power to run about 300,000 homes a year, with huge benefits to ranchers who can lease acreage for wind turbines. However, as good as these State efforts are, they are subject to the inherent limitation that they can only address electricity sales and production within their own State boundaries. Yet as we know, electricity generation and transmission are regional in nature. State renewable requirements alone cannot provide the market and other mechanisms necessary to address regional and national electricity transmission. But these State programs demonstrate that renewables requirements can work, and operate to the benefit of consumers. Finally, I call for a national commitment to encourage renewable power because a cleaner energy future is in our grasp. The U.S. has the technical capacity to generate 4.5 times its current electricity needs from renewable energy resources. European investment continues to outstrip U.S. markets, but that is changing. Worldwide, approximately 6,500 megawatts of new wind energy generating capacity were installed, amounting to annual sales of about $7 billion. Almost a third of that came from the United States, which installed nearly 1,700 megawatts of new wind energy in 2001, or $1.7 billion worth of new wind energy generating capacity. Yet, renewable energy still accounts for only a little over 2 percent of U.S. electricity generation. It is not that we expect this renewable portfolio standard to make conventional energy sources obsolete. Undoubtedly, fossil, nuclear and other fuels will be with us for some time. But isn't it time that we charted our future with cleaner energies? The potential is there, but we have to give it the assistance of market incentives, as we have traditionally done for our more established fuel sources. I urge my colleagues to again demonstrate our strong commitment to renewables and support my legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.