Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Also, isn't this a job creation bill and is this not a time when this Nation is in dire need of improving the employment of people who desire to have work?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to make one further statement. The Senator from Arizona indicated we dramatically changed the highway formula. The bill reported out of the EPW Committee, in fact, does not change the underlying formulas for interstate bridges, national highways, and air quality. The only change we made was to increase the return to donor States while ensuring growth to each and every State. The EPW Committee wanted to put forth a bill that achieved fair balance and growth in every State. As in all of our national programs, we direct resources in our bill to the 50 States in order to maintain a national system. If we only sent funds to programs on a State-by-State basis, and then based it only on the ratios of the taxes paid from each State, we would be balkanized and disunified. I believe our bill is fair, balanced, equitable, and national in scope. As States grow, donor States grow. Every State is equipped to carry the share of the burden it is supporting on the national transportation system. This is a good bill. Let us get it done.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the Senate leaders for their strong support in reauthorizing the Nation's transportation program, and also my good friend from New Jersey who lends his participation and expertise in coming up with a good bill. He has worked very hard. I deeply appreciate what he has done. Senators Frist and Daschle have spoken forcefully to the vital nature of S. 1072, its potential to create jobs and spur the economy. The American people are counting on us to advance this important legislation. With the stellar bipartisanship of leaders Senators Frist and Daschle, I am confident we will succeed. Having worked now for many months with my good friend from Oklahoma, I know we will succeed. As we consider this massive surface transportation bill, there is a tendency to focus on the State-by-State funding matter, overlooking the important policy initiatives and broad implications that attend to the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars. I do not question the importance of the funding formulas. We spent countless hours examining options and developing an approach that benefits all States and balances competing interests. But today, and through the course of our debate on S. 1072, I want to discuss the many forward-looking refinements that my colleagues and I have put forward for consideration. Transportation investment is a means to an end. Our Nation has grown and prospered through strategic development of ports, trails, roads, rails, airports, highways, subways, and byways. In almost every case, our great cities can trace their origins--their very existence--to the logistics of transportation as one of the many eras of our Nation's expansion. The form and expanse of our cities and towns are an outgrowth of surface transportation technology and investment. In my State of Vermont, even today, the distance between village centers reflects historic travel times by horse and wagon. Older suburbs in the eastern and midwestern United States are located along early twentieth century trolley lines--lines later abandoned and now being renewed. Our great sprawling sunbelt and western cities are a product of many key technologies, not the least of which is the modern highway. And it is the greatest highway network in the world--the Eisenhower Interstate Defense Highway System--that has tied our Nation and its many regions so closely together as we move into the twenty-first century. Transportation investment truly forms our Nation and its communities. That is why our decisions on transportation policy and program structure--both in Congress and at home in our States and communities-- must be balanced, well-informed, and forward-looking. I am proud that S. 1072 reflects this understanding. We are probably coming to a conclusion for the week. I thank all of those who have succeeded in making sure this bill is proceeding properly, especially my good friend from Oklahoma, with whom I have worked. I know he will assist us in making sure this bill becomes a reality in the not-too-distant future. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Smallwood, a fellow in the office of Senator Lieberman, be granted the privilege of the floor for the consideration of S. 1072, the highway bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee not only for their work on this important part of the legislation but also for their willingness to work with me to reconcile the environmental provisions that are contained in this amendment with the provisions contained in S. 1072. S. 1072 amends title 23 of the United States Code to provide for adjustments in the transportation planning process. The amendment the Banking Committee has admirably drafted contains similar provisions that amend title 49 of the code. I understand that for the sake of good policy--that is, minimal confusion to the entities that must implement this law--the chairman and ranking member are willing to work with us to craft provisions that are consistent with the two titles. I thank the Senators for their help. Mr. President, I am also very pleased that the bill the Environment and Public Works Committee reported contains a provision that will help fund community efforts to provide safe routes to schools for schoolchildren who walk or who ride their bikes to school. This would include funding for overpasses, underpasses, red lights, or other ways to help reduce accidents and keep schoolchildren safer. The exact use of the funds would depend on the needs of the local community. The funding is important because many school districts have a policy of prohibiting bus service for children living within a mile or perhaps a half mile of the school. A National Academy of Sciences report shows that, on average, almost 16,000 schoolage children per year are injured or killed during normal school travel hours. Let me repeat that number. Almost 16,000 schoolchildren are injured or killed during normal school travel hours. Thus, I support strong funding for safer routes to the schools. I know that in my home State of Vermont, especially in the dark winter mornings when it is icy, schoolchildren can be at risk while walking to school. When Vermont warms up, many schoolchildren may choose to ride bikes to school, and we should make it as safe as possible for them to get safely to and from school. Often school districts do not provide bus service to children living near the schools they attend. Yet research shows that many children are injured within a mile or so of their homes. The provision in our bill will provide $70 million per year to help States and local communities reduce these serious risks to schoolchildren. The committee report notes that the purpose of this program is to enable and to encourage children to walk and bicycle to school and encourages a healthy and active lifestyle by making walking and biking to school safer or a more appealing transportation alternative for those living close to school. I look forward to working with the other body on this important initiative. I know that safe routes to schools is important to my friend, Congressman Oberstar, and to a great many of his colleagues. I thank Senators Inhofe and Bond for working with Senator Reid and me on this important issue. We worked out a strong provision regarding safe routes to school. Mr. President, I wish to briefly discuss the freight provisions we have included in this bill. We have crafted a package that provides considerable flexibility to States and metropolitan planning organizations in addressing freight rail concerns. We have made improvements to intermodal freight transportation projects eligible for the Surface Transportation Program and the National Highway System funding. We will have each State designate a freight coordinator to assist in integrating freight concerns into statewide planning and metropolitan planning. We have also included funding to improve the condition and performance of the National Highway System intermodal connectors. These connectors are those last mile connections to ports and other freight- related facilities that experience a high volume of traffic and have not received the proper amount of attention in the past. These freight rail provisions make our bill very responsive to the needs of the freight community. These are important sections of the bill. I wish to emphasize the need for transit improvement. As we travel around this Nation, from California to New York--wherever we go--we have to develop better ways for our transit systems to be more effective. Looking worldwide, we have seen incredible improvements in some countries that are very populous with the utilization of new transit systems and new modes of transportation, such as maglev and other evolving systems. This is very important, and it is going to be more important as we continue to go forward and continue to increase the number of automobiles on our highways. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my chairman. I understand his dedication to doing so much more as we go forward. We are accomplishing a lot today, and yet we still have to sit down and look to the future as soon as we are done with the present.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I recognize my good friend from Maryland.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman. As has been pointed out already by one of our members, the bill we are talking about is rather extensive. But it was not done quickly or without the tremendous work of staff and many people who have contributed outside of the staff in listening to people from all over the country before we put the final touch on the bill. The highway bill provides us with an opportunity every 6 years to give our communities, our businesses and our citizens a real boost by renewing our commitment to the world's most extensive transportation system. I am proud to be a leader in that effort this year. Through the bill before us today, we will improve the condition and the performance of our roads and bridges, thousands and millions of them. That means both safer travel today and lower maintenance costs tomorrow. I am particularly pleased that our work continues the transportation partnership established under President Eisenhower during the Interstate period and expanded with passage of ISTEA 12 years ago. That means that local leaders, stakeholders and citizens will continue to work with State and Federal officials to set spending priorities and define project scope. I am also proud that we have maintained the linkage between transportation and the environment in our bill. Investments in transportation must build strong, healthy communities. Through advanced planning and early coordination we can ensure better results. I urge my colleagues to work with those of us responsible for this bill so that we may complete our work in a timely way. America's communities are relying on us. The States are relying upon us. All people using the transportation system are depending upon us. I am sure we will produce this document in a way that will make us all very proud.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am most pleased to assist in this regard. The environmental provisions contained in this bill reflect a bipartisan compromise reached among the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Although there are a number of additional changes I would like to have made in these provisions, I believe the bill deals fairly in regard to these sections, given the variety of strong opinions on environmental subjects. Several stakeholders have argued any early identification of potential environmental concerns may help reduce or avoid delays during the environmental review. Therefore, this bill specifies factors that may be considered during the transportation planning process. Current law already requires transportation planners to consider projects and strategies that will protect and enhance the environment and improve quality of life. The items added by this bill simply provide more direction as to what these concepts mean. These items do not constitute a checklist of items, whereby every item listed must be considered by each State and metropolitan planning organization, or MPO. Section 1502. As another means of providing for early consideration of environmental concerns, this bill requires transportation planners to consult with appropriate resource agencies. Interagency consultation should facilitate comparison of transportation plans to conservation plans or maps and inventories of natural or historic resources, where those plans or maps and inventories already exist and are in use. The long-range transportation plan will also include a discussion of potential mitigation activities and sites that may help compensation for issues due to the transportation plan. This requirement is intended to get States to think strategically about mitigation. It is not to add new mitigation requirements or to require a level of detail better handled at the individual project review stage. Section 1503. Integration of natural resource concerns into transportation project planning. Additionally, the highway bill contains provisions to incorporate the principles of context-sensitive design into current design standards. These principles involve consideration of the environmental context of a project and encouragement of design that minimizes impact on the project's surroundings. These provisions aim to integrate natural resource concerns into the transportation project planning process. Section 1504. Public investment in transportation planning and projects. Current law provides an opportunity for the public to be involved to some degree in the development of transportation plans. This bill includes specific ideas for making public involvement opportunities more meaningful, such as making publicly available documents available on the Internet. Section 1506. Federal and State laws often require habitat, stream, or wetland mitigation to compensate for direct adverse environmental impact caused by transportation projects. To provide additional flexibility and certainty in meeting these requirements, this bill authorizes the establishment of State mitigation funds, using moneys received from the Surface Transportation Program and National Highway System programs. The State mitigation fund operates as a planning and project management tool available to the States. States can even use the mitigation funds to undertake larger mitigation efforts based on the total impact of a multitude of projects combined rather than project- by-project mitigation. This enables the States to more effectively plan for and provide the mitigation that is or likely will be required for transportation projects under other environmental laws. The next section, 1511, transportation project development process. TEA-21 directed the Department of Transportation, DOT to ``develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for highway construction and mass transit projects.'' Unfortunately, this was never achieved. It took almost 2 years for DOT to even propose rules, and those proposed rules were roundly criticized by many interested stakeholders and many in this Chamber. That proposal has since been withdrawn. So it was necessary for us, obviously, to take the next step legislatively. This bill sets up a process for complying with current environmental laws. In establishing a process for compliance, the bill does not venture to amend any current environmental laws. It does not venture to amend any current environmental laws. Under this process, DOT is the lead agency with authority to set work plans and schedules, determine the purpose and need for a project, and determine which alternatives must be considered. This process also includes more public participation than currently required and continues to authorize DOT to provide funds to resource agencies to assist them in expediting project environmental reviews. Section 1512. Assumption of responsibility for categorical exclusions. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, some types of projects can be categorically excluded from lengthy analysis. Qualifying projects are those projects that ``do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment.'' Approximately 90 percent of all surface transportation projects are processed as categorical exclusions, or CEs, under NEPA. Since this is such an overwhelming percentage of the projects, even a small improvement in processing time for each CE can result in a large improvement systemwide. The bill before us today attempts to make that improvement by allowing States to assume the Secretary's responsibility for completing the environmental review process for projects classified as CE under current regulations. This assumption of responsibility will be limited to those States that have adequate capabilities and would remain subject to Federal oversight to maintain proper accountability. Section 1513. Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program. Often a State will do much of the work involved with the preparing and environmental review of a surface transportation project. Then the Federal Department of Transportation must review and approve the State's work, the applicable documentation. Some stakeholders have argued that allowing States to complete the NEPA review, regardless of whether the project requires a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or even an environmental impact statement, could result in significant time savings and speed up project delivery. The highway bill sets out to explore this idea by establishing a pilot program that allows up to five States to assume the Secretary's responsibility for the environmental review of a transportation project. Under this pilot program, States will have to meet several criteria before and after selection to participate. These requirements include soliciting public comment prior to applying for participation, verifying adequate capabilities to carry out the responsibilities to be assumed, entering into a written agreement with the Secretary, submitting to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, submitting to periodic compliance audits, and complying with the same procedural and subsequent requirements under Federal environmental law as would apply if the Secretary were conducting reviews. Section 1514. In keeping with the new environmental changes, the bill directs the Department of Transportation to promulgate new regulations within 1 year to implement the planning and project delivery sections of the bill. Section 1521. Critical real property acquisition. The committee bill enables States to use Federal funds to expeditiously acquire a limited number of parcels of land that may be needed for future transportation development but are threatened by imminent economic development. The early acquisition of property keeps future transportation options open and provides States with an important opportunity to reserve future alignment alternatives while allowing timely and cost-saving acquisitions. In limited circumstances and with the Secretary's approval, States can use the Federal funds to cover the cost incurred in acquiring parcels of land that are considered to be critical for any transportation project under title 23. Federal land may be used to acquire property prior to the completion of the environmental reviews for proper acquisition. Environmental reviews and approvals are still required before physical construction, demolition, or clearing is commenced. If a parcel is later sold or leased, States cannot retain the Federal share of the proceeds. Section 1522. Planning capacity building initiative. Focusing on the importance of comprehensive and integrated planning, S. 1072 establishes a planning capacity building initiative to strengthen metropolitan and statewide transportation planning and to enhance tribal capacity to conduct joint transportation planning. The bill gives priority to planning practices that support the transportation elements of homeland security planning, performance- based planning, safety planning, operations planning, freight planning, and the integration of environment and planning. The planning capacity building initiative will be administered by the DOT's Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration. Section 1601. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement control of invasive plant species and establishment of native species. Storm water runoff from highways has a direct impact on the Nation's waterways, carrying with it pollutions such as brake linings, oils, heavy metals, road salts, nutrients, et cetera. To address these waterborne pollutants, current law already allows States to use STP funds to address water pollution or environmental degradation caused or contributed to by transportation facilities currently undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration so long as the environmental project does not exceed 20 percent of the overall project cost. This bill extends eligibility for those types of mitigation projects from the States' STP funds to include their funds under the NHS program as well. It further allows the funds to be used for environmental restoration projects not associated with an active construction project. The stormwater project must address runoff from an existing Federal- aid highway but not necessarily one undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration. Invasive species are a growing problem both economically and environmentally. These harmful plants plague thousands of areas of rangelands and croplands and have been cited as a staggering problem by such organizations such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation. By making both NHS and STP funds available to mitigate invasive species along roadways, we provide States with the flexibility to minimize the impact of vehicles as vectors of these problematic plants. Section 1602 relates to the National Scenic Byways Program. TEA-21 continues the National Scenic Byways Program authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to designate roads that have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and architectural qualities as all-American roads, or national scenic highways. This bill amends the current program to recognize that the Secretary already is promoting the collection of ``national scenic byways'' and ``all-American roads'' under the designation of ``America's byways.'' If State and Federal representatives reach consensus on establishing a single designation category, then these amendments will provide the Secretary with the authority to use any of the three terms, national scenic byways, all-American roads, or America's byways, as the single designation. The bill also authorizes the Secretary for the first time to form public/private partnerships to carry out technical assistance, marketing, market research, and promotion with respect to national scenic byways. Section 1603 is the Recreational Trails Program. This bill continues the Recreational Trails Program allowing Federal funds to be used to provide and maintain recreational trails for motorized and nonmotorized recreational trail uses. New eligible uses of funds permit trail assessment for accessibility and maintenance, and to hire trail crews or youth conservation or service corps to perform recreational trails activities. Current activities eligible under the program educational funding already include nonlaw enforcement trail safety, trail use monitoring patrols, and trail-related training. Since projects under the Recreational Trails Program are much smaller than typical highway projects, this program is relieved of several normal requirements which, although appropriate for large highway projects, would be excessively burdensome for small trail projects. Section 1604 covers exemption of interstate systems. SAFETEA establishes an exemption for the interstate system from consideration as a ``historic site'' regardless of whether the interstate system or portions of the interstate system may be eligible for listing on the National Registry of Historic Places. However, a portion of the interstate system that possesses an independent feature of historic significance, such as a bridge or a uniquely significant architectural feature, may still be considered a historic site individually. Section 1605 of this bill changes current law to place greater emphasis on the need to consider the preservation of human and natural resources in the decisionmaking process of developing highway projects. Consideration of a variety of highway project impacts has been part of the design process for many years. However, the transportation community has demanded improvements in project delivery and in the makeup of the product that is delivered. Compatibility with the surrounding environment and improved safety for the motorist and the pedestrian are critical. The bill also directs the Secretary to ensure that the plans and specifications for proposed highway projects have considered preservation, historic, scenic, natural environment, and community values. However, States can use existing processes for demonstrating that they have considered these subject factors. Section 1606 covers use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes which has been a topic of great interest to both States and stakeholders. This reauthorization bill clarifies existing law and provides more flexibility to State and local agencies for effective management of high-occupancy vehicle, or HOV, facilities. Certain types of vehicles are exempt from meeting the general occupancy requirements for HOV facilities. The bill further identifies the possible operational strategies that responsible agencies may select from to maximize the use of HOV facilities, manage highway capacity, mitigate congestion, and reduce fuel consumption. Motorcycles continue to be allowed use of HOV facilities. Responsible Government agencies choosing to meet additional requirements may also allow low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid vehicles, to use HOV facilities. These agencies are also given the authority to toll the use of an HOV facility by vehicles that do not otherwise meet the normal minimum capacity or other exemption requirements. Section 1607 relates to bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways. The highway authorization bill makes minor changes regarding pedestrian walkways, specifically allowing the use of the Surface Transportation Program, STP, funds and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement programs, CMAQs, funds for the nonconstruction pedestrian safety programs where current law only mentions bicycle safety. We also explicitly mention the pedestrian use on bridges, whereas current law only mentions safety programs for bicycle use. The practice of charging user fees for shared-use paths is also permitted so long as the fees collected by a State are used for maintaining and operating the shared-use paths within the State. User fees may not be collected on shared-use paths that are not within a highway right-of-way nor make user fees be charged for the use of sidewalks or bicycle paths. I would like to stop at this point and pass the description to my good friend, Senator Bond. Thank you.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, right. It is fantastic. We know also that we have a long way to go. The work you have done and my staff has done, all of us, has placed us in a great position to start. But now it is the opportunity for all the Members to check carefully to see how their States are doing and maybe make some improvements. We know we will have a number of amendments. We have a long way to go, but I think we are off to a great start. I expect we will have a great finish.

Mr. JEFFORDS. They should all have the opportunity, and I know we will provide it. I think we have done a great job, so there should not be too much problem.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will take very little time. I commend the chairman again and all the staffs, his and mine, for the incredible amount of work they have put into this effort.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator. I echo those words with respect to the chairman's cooperation as well. It has been a pleasure to work with him and his staff. I am glad we are where we are now. I wish to speak briefly on yesterday's incident that apparently involved ricin. First, I thank Majority Leader Frist for his calm and professional approach to this matter. I also thank the Capitol Police, the Attending Physician, and everyone who assisted in responding to this incident. As many of my colleagues know, my personal office is adjacent to Senator Frist's office on the first floor, and my committee staff is located across the hall from Senator Frist, so we were hit twice as hard on this episode. Nearly a dozen of my staff members were quarantined last night and later decontaminated. They did not get home until after 2 in the morning. I would like to say a special thank you to them. Thankfully, everyone is feeling fine, and they don't appear to have any ill effects. We should not have to go through this type of episode as we go about our business every day, but, unfortunately, these are the times we are living in. I am hopeful we will get to the bottom of who is responsible, close this chapter, and return to our normal routines as soon as possible. Incidentally--and I may be getting a little paranoid--we are the only office to have also been involved in the other episode because we moved from Hart to Dirksen this year. I want to warn everyone, watch where I am. You may save yourself some problems. Some 2\1/2\ years ago when I assumed the leadership of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I set my sights on reauthorization of the Nation's Surface Transportation Program. I recognized this to be the most challenging task confronting the committee. I have spent these last 2 years working with my colleagues, meeting with Americans, and studying the Nation's transportation needs. I have traveled the country visiting local communities and seeing firsthand our many national transportation challenges. My observations on the road were reinforced by our committee's hearing process. The committee and our Transportation Subcommittee held 11 public hearings and sponsored three roundtable discussions to prepare for renewal of the Nation's Surface Transportation Program. We heard from over 100 witnesses from 30 States, representing over 60 organizations. The process generated a hearing record of over 1,500 pages. What I heard is our current national program is working well; that we should refine it and not replace it. Our national transportation policy must serve the public good. In my view, the outcomes we seek are a strong economy, safe and healthy communities, and a clean environment. A balanced transportation system is necessary for us to attain these goals. The success of our Surface Transportation Program will rest on four fundamental pillars. Asset management is the first pillar. We must maintain and preserve our infrastructure investment. We cannot allow highways and bridges to deteriorate. Access and mobility is the second pillar. Most Americans now live in metro areas, and most metro areas are congested and getting worse. We need to focus on these problems. The third pillar is freight and trade. The value of trade and tonnage of goods moved in this country is enormous and growing. We need new facilities to accommodate this growth. The fourth pillar is safety. We must continue the progress we have made over the last 10 years reducing the rate of highway fatalities and work now to reduce the actual number of lives lost on our roadways. In partnership with our chairman, Senator Inhofe, and with the leaders of our subcommittee, Senators Bond and Reid, we have helped construct a bill, SAFETEA, on these pillars. SAFETEA retains the strengths of our current national transportation program while enhancing its effectiveness to deal with the challenges facing our States and communities. The bill meets highway system needs for strong growth in a manner that increases assistance to every State and every region. It is funded at a level of $255 billion that will enable the States to improve road and bridge conditions. The bill will generate millions of well-paying jobs since every billion dollars spent on the highway program can generate up to 47,500 jobs. These jobs come at a time of great economic need in our communities. A well-funded safety title is also included. It features a new program--Safe Routes to Schools--to protect children as they walk or ride their bikes to school. Significant 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. The increased intermodal flexibility set forth in the bill will allow States, if they wish, to improve freight handling and movement. But fundamentally, this massive transportation bill is about people. It is about making it easier to commute to work; making roads safer for our families; preserving scenic beauty for future generations; helping our children get to school safely; moving freight efficiently and cheaply; and making America better. Working with my colleagues, I have done my level best to write a bill that is fair to all States and regions of our country. I am committed to maintaining the legacy I inherited from my dear friends and former colleagues, Pat Moynihan and John Chafee. I look forward to completing this job, working with Chairman Inhofe, with the leaders of the other authorizing committees, and with all my fellow Members to produce legislation that will build a strong America. I thank the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma. I have been through this before, but this was the most expeditious and well-run operation I have been involved in, and I think we are moving toward a successful result.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his very kind words. I certainly reciprocate and acknowledge the amount of cooperation we have had, especially that our staffs have had working together, which has greatly stimulated all of us to recognize we have a good bill and we are going to get it done. I would also like to announce to the Senator that I just left the Finance Committee, and we voted out--as was expected--favorably the money to get it done. So we are ready now to proceed to it tonight, and hopefully we will. Chairman Inhofe and I are urging a ``yes'' vote, of course, to move the transportation bill to the Senate floor where it can be fully debated and amended. This bill will strengthen our Nation's transportation system, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and improve the safety of our transportation system. Our Nation's roads and bridges and transit systems need immediate attention. Passage of the bill will provide essential Federal funding to the States so they have the resources needed to maintain and improve our transportation infrastructure. We cannot afford to wait any longer to make much-needed investments in our transportation infrastructure. Fortunately, unlike many other bills, our transportation bill will be fully offset and paid for. The Finance Committee did a tremendous job working this out. As I said just a moment ago, they passed it. Let us not forget that each time you go to the gas pump, you are paying for this bill. Our transportation bill better spends the gas taxes you are currently paying. We do not increase the Federal gas tax; we better spend that tax to help States, counties, and cities address their transportation needs. A 6-year bill will allow us to better spend the gas taxes and fund State efforts to reduce congestion, improve transit programs, repair dangerous bridges, and improve freight mobility. A 6-year bill will create over 2 million new, high-paying jobs. That is 2 million high- paying jobs. Chairman Inhofe is absolutely correct; since the bill is deficit neutral, putting off our bill until next year will only make matters worse. So let's do it now. An extension simply means that urgent highway and bridge repair costs will be more heavily borne by States and local governments than by the Federal Government. A simple extension means commuters will spend more time stuck in traffic. A simple extension means visits to the grocery store or the doctor's office or the drugstore or the restaurant will take longer. Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Almost 30 percent of our bridges are in bad shape. We have to address these problems, and our transportation bill will help get that job done. We are asking for a ``yes'' vote to move this bill to the Senate floor for a full debate on its merits, and we hope to do it soon. It will be open for amendment, and the chairman and I will work with all Senators in this effort. Do not forget, the EPW bill increases the amount of funding for each and every State. And every State gets more than they did last time. I think that is correct. Chairman Inhofe has been a very forceful leader in this massive undertaking to reauthorize our Nation's transportation laws. He has thoughtfully devised an innovative plan that balances the interests of the great majority of donor and donee States. That is a tough one. Chairman Inhofe is to be commended for his creativity and energy in crafting major aspects of the bill, which the EPW Committee is putting before the Senate. As head of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Bond has worked closely with Senator Inhofe and led the charge to obtain a strong level of funding for this effort. Senator Harry Reid, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and I have worked together with Senators Inhofe and Bond throughout the Committee process and stuck together at the Committee markup to protect and enhance the passage of the bill. History should also record that many fine staff worked long hours and proposed some excellent approaches for our consideration. They have done a tremendous job. Before I conclude I would like to mention my old friend John Chafee. Six years ago, Senator Chafee was the Chairman of the EPW Committee. He moved this massive bill with the grace and the tenacity that was his trade-mark. John Chafee was a giant in this body, and he is missed very much today by all those who had the wonderful opportunity to work with him and shared his expertise. I can only hope that we all draw on the lessons of bipartisanship, of cooperation and of consensus that John taught us. To sum up, we are asking for a yes vote to get this bill to the Senate floor for a full debate on its merits. Our Nation needs this bill and needs it now. I thank the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to see that the Senate is taking action on the Pension Equity Act of 2003. As many of my colleagues are aware, the pension discount rate relief initiative, enacted in 2001, expired last month. Passage of H.R. 3108 will provide a resolution to this very serious issue. This bill replaces the outdated 30-year Treasury bill rate with a rate based on a composite of investment grade long-term corporate bonds. Failure to act on this bill will cause the statutory rate that pension plans must use to calculate their assets and liabilities to return to the old 30-year rate. Companies with pension plans will shortly have to begin making large contributions to their plans in the year to come. An amendment to H.R. 3108 will provide relief from the deficit reduction contribution, DRC, requirements that certain plans are now facing. Under the current pension funding rules, companies that offer defined benefit pension plans are required to make additional contributions to those plans when they are less than 90 percent funded. A pension plan's funding level is determined by comparing the plan's current assets to its promised benefits and then calculated as to whether the two will match up by the time the promised benefits are due. The recent drop in the stock market, low interest rates, and generous pension benefits agreed to in better times have caused many defined benefit pension plans to fall well beneath the 90 percent threshold. As a result, many companies are being required to make substantial contributions at the time they can least afford them. The Finance Committee reported bill, which I support, included fair DRC relief. While I support these provisions related to pensions, I am disappointed that this body has not worked to enact further reforms. Two months ago, I, along with Senators Snowe and Hatch, introduced S. 1912, the Retirement Account Portability Act of 2003. In brief, this bill will make a number of improvements in the retirement savings system to help families preserve retirement assets. It will, for example, enhance the portability of retirement savings by expanding rollover options in traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, and SIMPLE Plans. The bill also clarifies that when employees are permitted to make after-tax contributions to retirement plans, those after-tax amounts may be rolled over into other retirement plans eligible to receive such rollovers. This clarification will make it easier for workers to move all elements of their 401(k) or 403(b) savings when they change jobs and move between the private sector and the tax-exempt sector. In addition, the bill builds on defined contribution plan reforms enacted in 2001 by requiring a shortened vesting schedule for employer nonelective contributions, such as profit-sharing contributions, to defined contribution plans. As a result, employer contributions will become employee property more quickly, helping workers to build more meaningful retirement benefits. This new vesting schedule corresponds to rules for 401(k) matching contributions enacted in 2001. The bill also helps preserve retirement savings by allowing plans to designate default IRAs or annuity contracts to which employee rollovers may be directed. Employers should be more willing to establish default IRA and annuity rollover options as a result, making it easier for employees to keep savings in the retirement system when they change jobs. For workers who leave a job without claiming their retirement benefits, the bill improves on the automatic rollover provisions enacted in 2001, by allowing certain small distributions from retirement plans to be sent to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, ensuring that participants are ultimately reunited with their earned benefits. The bill also expands the scope of the PBGC's successful Missing Participants Program that matches workers with lost pension benefits. The Retirement Account Portability Act of 2003 will benefit employees of State and local governments, including teachers, through a number of this bill's technical corrections that will facilitate the purchase of service credits in public pension programs, allowing State and local employees to more easily attain a full pension in the jurisdiction where they conclude their career. The bill also contains provisions that will clarify eligibility rights of certain State and local employees who participate in a section 457 deferred compensation plan. As this body moves to pass H.R. 3108 today, I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus for their hard work on this legislation. I also thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for their contributions to this initiative. I look forward to working with my distinguished chairmen and ranking members of the HELP and Finance Committees in moving S. 1912 and other measures that will proactively improve the mechanisms we use for pension and retirement plans.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, as an original cosponsor of legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the United States. This bill is similar to Title I of the S. 1754, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2003, that I introduced last October in response to the Northeast blackout. Last night, in his State of the Union, the President urged Congress to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. This bill, the Electric Reliability Act of 2004, addresses the President's request, and the Senate should pass it expeditiously. Our country needs the new, clear national rules of the road contained in this bill to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power. As the people in the Northeast will not soon forget, in August 2003 nearly 50 million people were affected by a massive power outage. But this is not an isolated incident. On January 16, 2004, Gov. James Douglas urged Vermonters to save power to help avert rolling blackouts because of electricity problems in southern New England. Though there was likely enough power to meet my State's demand, but we are part of a regional grid system. This system, as we learned last year, needs to operate in a coordinated fashion or the region faces blackouts. The Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, whose State was so significantly affected during the Northeast blackouts, knows well the hardship long electricity outages cause. I am pleased that she and the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, have joined in this effort. The Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, has been alerted to the need for reliability legislation well before last year, as her State suffered during the massive multi-state Western blackout of 1996. Be it 1996, 2003 or last week, these events emphasize the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages. Congress needs to do all that is necessary to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. Those who know this issue well, say that reliability legislation is essential. On the first day of this year, Michehl Gent, President and Chief Executive of the North American Electric Reliability Council, said in the New York Times that all of the actions taken by industry and oversight organizations to respond to the Northeast blackout do ``not reduce the need for Federal legislation that would provide authority to impose and enforce mandatory reliability standards.'' He continues, ``whether legislation is adopted on a stand-alone basis or as part of a comprehensive energy bill, passage is essential. If reliability legislation had been enacted when first proposed, I believe that the blackout would not have occurred.'' Given that Congress has not passed grid reliability legislation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided during its December 17, 2003 open meeting to have its staff develop an order over the next few weeks requiring utilities and other jurisdictional entities to report violations of voluntary reliability standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Council. The Commission also asked for comment on its legal authority under existing statutes to mandate compliance with those standards. Why is Congress making FERC waste time trying to determine whether they have the legal authority to act to protect consumers and ensure electric reliability? We should simply make that statutory authority clear. Reliability legislation has passed the Senate twice, and this bill asks the Senate to act on those same provisions again. Congress should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. We should pass this bill now, and I pledge my support to the Senators from Washington and New York, Senators Cantwell and Clinton in doing so. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we cannot afford to do otherwise. I invite my colleagues to join us in our efforts to advance energy security and reliability in the United States.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, as an original cosponsor of legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the United States. This bill is similar to Title I of the S. 1754, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2003, that I introduced last October in response to the Northeast blackout. Last night, in his State of the Union, the President urged Congress to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. This bill, the Electric Reliability Act of 2004, addresses the President's request, and the Senate should pass it expeditiously. Our country needs the new, clear national rules of the road contained in this bill to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power. As the people in the Northeast will not soon forget, in August 2003 nearly 50 million people were affected by a massive power outage. But this is not an isolated incident. On January 16, 2004, Gov. James Douglas urged Vermonters to save power to help avert rolling blackouts because of electricity problems in southern New England. Though there was likely enough power to meet my State's demand, but we are part of a regional grid system. This system, as we learned last year, needs to operate in a coordinated fashion or the region faces blackouts. The Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, whose State was so significantly affected during the Northeast blackouts, knows well the hardship long electricity outages cause. I am pleased that she and the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, have joined in this effort. The Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, has been alerted to the need for reliability legislation well before last year, as her State suffered during the massive multi-state Western blackout of 1996. Be it 1996, 2003 or last week, these events emphasize the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages. Congress needs to do all that is necessary to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. Those who know this issue well, say that reliability legislation is essential. On the first day of this year, Michehl Gent, President and Chief Executive of the North American Electric Reliability Council, said in the New York Times that all of the actions taken by industry and oversight organizations to respond to the Northeast blackout do ``not reduce the need for Federal legislation that would provide authority to impose and enforce mandatory reliability standards.'' He continues, ``whether legislation is adopted on a stand-alone basis or as part of a comprehensive energy bill, passage is essential. If reliability legislation had been enacted when first proposed, I believe that the blackout would not have occurred.'' Given that Congress has not passed grid reliability legislation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided during its December 17, 2003 open meeting to have its staff develop an order over the next few weeks requiring utilities and other jurisdictional entities to report violations of voluntary reliability standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Council. The Commission also asked for comment on its legal authority under existing statutes to mandate compliance with those standards. Why is Congress making FERC waste time trying to determine whether they have the legal authority to act to protect consumers and ensure electric reliability? We should simply make that statutory authority clear. Reliability legislation has passed the Senate twice, and this bill asks the Senate to act on those same provisions again. Congress should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. We should pass this bill now, and I pledge my support to the Senators from Washington and New York, Senators Cantwell and Clinton in doing so. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we cannot afford to do otherwise. I invite my colleagues to join us in our efforts to advance energy security and reliability in the United States.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues and the American public some serious questions today--questions about air pollution and its impacts closer to home. Many of us listening today have children and grandchildren. How many of them have asthma? How many of us have taken children to the emergency room in the middle of the night, desperate to put a stop to their terrifying asthma attacks? How many of the Nation's growing number of asthmatic children have to carry inhalers to school, and wish they could run, play, and breathe freely like the other kids? How many Americans know young children who depend on their asthma inhalers to get safely through a simple game of baseball? Their asthma attacks could be some of the six hundred thousand caused by air pollution every year. How many of our own children or grandchildren yearn to play outdoors during school recess, only to have their teachers warn them the air is too unhealthy? How many of us have parents or siblings with emphysema? Or chronic lung disease? Reduced lung function, or lung cancer? Air pollution decreases lung function and causes asthma and asthma attacks, lung disease, emphysema, lung cancer, and heart problems. Do Americans ever worry that their own lives may be shortened by three or four years, just because the air is so dirty? Sixty thousand people die prematurely in this country every year because of air pollution. It's hard to believe, isn't it? Let me put it another way. Air pollution is responsible for more deaths than breast cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, skin cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer, lymphoma, or leukemia. Half of the deaths caused by air pollution are due to power plants alone. In fact, power plant-related deaths are so numerous that they far outnumber drunk driving fatalities in all but one of the 15 dirtiest States. Have Americans ever wondered how close they live to a powerplant? A Harvard University study showed that those who live near powerplants, who are often the poorer, less educated, uninsured, or minority populations, tend to be the most affected by pollution. Fortunately for some of us here, we are probably less vulnerable. We live further away, we live more comfortably, and we have access to quality health care. But does that sound like a fair and equitable distribution of the impacts of pollution? Hardly. Americans can experience pollution very differently. Although 58 percent of white Americans live in counties violating Federal air pollution standards--an unacceptably high percentage--71 percent of African Americans do. Even worse, twice as many African Americans die from pollution than whites. Does that sound like a fair allocation of the impacts? If these appeals do not strike a chord, perhaps the economic impact of all these health problems will. I have mentioned before that over 30,000 premature deaths can be blamed on powerplant pollution every year. An EPA consulting firm using EPA methodology estimated that this loss of life hurts the U.S. economy by $170 billion each year. I ask unanimous consent that a table from this firm's recent report be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. When you add in the economic impact of the tens of thousands of cases of asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, heart problems, and lost work days, you reach a pretty staggering conclusion. Powerplant pollution alone is responsible for $178 billion in damage to our health and our economy each year, burdening our already taxed Medicare program and draining American productivity. There are even more ways in which air pollution hurts our way of life. How many Americans seek peace and enjoyment in our national parks, only to find the vistas clogged with haze? Do families go hiking in our national forests, only to reach bald stands of trees that have been killed by acid rain? I know many people from my State of Vermont and other States are avid skiers. Do they wonder why ski resorts must make their own snow more now than ever before, and why the ski season continues to come later each year? Global warming will threaten more than ski vacations in the very near future. Global warming and rising sea levels could mean life and death to those in our society who live on the margins. Do those listening today enjoy fishing trips with their families? Do their husbands and wives, daughters and sons, and grandchildren eat the fish that are caught? I am sorry to say that the fish being caught may contain unhealthy levels of mercury, likely due to dirty powerplants. Coal-fired powerplants emit mercury emissions. Mercury contaminates rainwater. It settles in waterways. It poisons fish. The contaminated fish create a health risk. Powerplants are responsible for one-third of all U.S. mercury emissions. Amazingly, they are currently unregulated. Are doctors warning pregnant women not to eat fish because mercury endangers fetuses? I hope they do, because one in 12 women in this country--that is 5 million women--have blood levels of mercury above EPA's safe health threshold. That means that over 300,000 newborns each year face increased risk of nervous system damage due to mercury exposure in the womb. How many Americans have children or grandchildren with learning disabilities, speech problems, attention disorders, loss of muscle coordination, memory problems, poor visual spatial skills, vision problems, hearing loss, seizures, mental retardation, or cerebral palsy? Have they ever wondered whether these disorders could be due to mercury exposure? We all saw what happened when a teen spilled less than a cup of mercury at Ballou High School in Southeast Washington. The metal is so toxic to humans that officials closed the school for over a month and evacuated 17 nearby homes. Do we feel comfortable knowing that U.S. powerplants emit 50 tons of toxic mercury into the air every year, so that it may fall in our backyards, in our grandchildren's sandboxes, and in the lakes where we fish? How many Americans depend on fishing in tainted waters for their livelihood? Chances are, they live in one of the 44 States in the Nation with fish advisories for mercury and other toxic pollutants. Chances are also likely that they are unaware that eating fish poisoned by mercury can damage their nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidneys, and immune system. Sadly, some ethnic groups and anglers who rely on high amounts of fish in their diets face two to five times the health risk. Unfortunately, these Americans may lack health insurance and access to proper medical care to deal with these problems. I have made an appeal today to my distinguished colleagues and to my fellow Americans. I know my colleagues are compassionate and they do everything possible to represent their constituents, their States, and the Nation well. I only hope they are moved by some of what I have said today to take swift and serious action to protect our air quality. Unfortunately, this administration's recent and upcoming actions to dismantle our clean air laws mean we all have to be vigilant. I will fight to protect those 60,000 lives and those 300,000 newborns. I will fight to bring down the $178 billion in costs to human health and to our precious environment. But Americans will need all of my colleagues' help, too. Senators should send a message to the President and EPA Administrator Leavitt right now. It needs to be loud, and it needs to be clear. The Clean Air Act says utility emissions of air toxics, especially mercury, have to come down drastically. EPA is already years behind in regulating. There should be no further delay. In the coming weeks, EPA is likely to propose a rule on mercury that is not legal or sanctioned by the Clean Air Act. Senators should tell Administrator Leavitt and the President that these ongoing assaults on air quality have to stop. I call on the President to do the right thing for once on clean air-- cut toxic air emissions from powerplants. Do it right. Do it as the law requires. And do it now.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have listened closely to the debate over providing prescription drugs and improving other benefits under the Medicare Program. This debate has not been limited to the last few days, as we all well know. This debate has been waged for 38 years. Providing Americans with access to prescription drugs at an affordable cost has been one of the most vexing issues facing Congress in recent years. Many ``solutions'' have been offered to ``fix'' the problems of high cost and lack of access, and Congress has explored and debated various approaches. Of these approaches, providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit is the most important and perhaps the most challenging to accomplish. For years, progress has been delayed over significant policy differences, not the least of which was the question of whether or not the Government could even afford to create a new and expensive entitlement program. But that question shifted and our debate this week wasn't focused on the question of whether the Government should provide a prescription drug benefit but rather on the details of how to structure a prescription drug benefit. Last Congress I had the privilege to work with several of my Republican and Democratic colleagues in the Senate to develop a Medicare drug benefit program that became a key option in the ``how to'' debate. Our proposal, which became known as the tripartisan effort, embodied the principles that I believed must be part of a Medicare drug program. First, the program must make a universal benefit available to all Medicare beneficiaries. It would be unfair to use much needed medicines as a carrot to lure seniors into managed care programs they don't want. We should also avoid providing a benefit only to the poorest of the poor and those with catastrophic costs. Virtually all seniors, regardless of income, need help to make their medicines either outright available or more affordable, and most have indicated a willingness to pay their fair share to support the program. Second, the program must be comprehensive so that elders would have as generous a benefit as possible, from their initial spending to their catastrophic costs, and they shouldn't have to forego the best medicines for the cheapest ones just in the name of budget savings. Third, a Medicare drug benefit must be affordable for both beneficiaries and the Government. Seniors should be able to get the best medicine available at the best possible price and the Government must derive the best cost savings through open competition. We should expect to realize as much savings in our pharmaceutical purchase for Medicare as foreign governments realize today. Finally, for a drug benefit to be truly successful it must be sustainable. It will do little good to repeat the catastrophic failure of years past by beginning a program that we cannot carry on. That is why this must be a shared responsibility of beneficiaries and the Government. A program that combines seniors' contributions with a Government guarantee will have the best chance of enduring into the future. Since last year, I have listened to the concerns of my colleagues, and I have weighed those concerns seriously. In the last few days of debate, I have given great consideration to the points raised by my colleagues and good friends in this body. I acknowledge their sentiments and I agree that this is not the bill I would have written if I had infinite resources to do it. This bill is not perfect. However, 38 years is just too long for American seniors to wait. Turning this legislation away would have been a missed opportunity to provide seniors with the most significant modernization of their Medicare benefits since the program's inception in 1965. I believe this bill meets these four standards: It is universal, comprehensive, affordable, and sustainable. Could it be improved? Certainly. But this plan is a good compromise. It offers a respectable and responsible plan within the budget limitations we faced. It is a good compromise. I support this bill. The conference report includes many significant features for the citizens of my home State of Vermont. It provides a sustainable, universal, and comprehensive prescription drug benefit to all 93,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Vermont. For 40,000 seniors in Vermont with limited savings and incomes below $13,470 for individuals and $18,180 for couples, the Federal Government will cover most of their drug costs. In addition, Medicare, instead of Medicaid, will now assume the prescription drug costs of 21,767 Vermont beneficiaries who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this will save Vermont $76 million over 8 years on prescription drug coverage for its Medicaid population. This bill recognizes the high cost of providing quality care in rural settings and finally puts an end to years of unfair reimbursement gaps between rural providers and their urban counterparts. Specifically, this Medicare package provides $25 billion for rural providers, netting $41 million in additional funds for Vermont hospitals over the next 10 years and $18 million for underreimbursed physicians over the next 2 years. I am also glad Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus have worked with me to address another inequity in the system. Critical access hospitals provide care in the some most underserved regions of Vermont as is the case throughout rural America. These hospitals are small yet serve as critical resources to their communities. I am very pleased to see that the conferees retained a provision from the Senate measure that will allow critical access hospitals, like the Mount Ascutney Hospital in Windsor, VT, to expand access to psychiatric and rehabilitative services to the most vulnerable citizens in that community. This bill contains a provision that will allow us to better understand how to provide quality health care, culminating several years of work in concert with Dr. Jack Wennberg at Dartmouth to measure care by the quality of patient outcomes rather than utilization of resources. In closing, I especially want to salute the efforts of Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, and Senator Breaux and the other without whose hard work and commitment to working through an agreement we would not have accomplished passage of this legislation and they deserve our accolades. I also thank several of my other colleagues who have contributed so much to this debate over the years. I have worked for more than 3 years with my good friends, Chairman Grassley and Senators Snowe, Breaux and Hatch. In many meetings over many months, we delved into the details of what came to be called the tripartisan bill. This has been one of the finest experiences of my many years in Congress. I am very proud to have been a part of that group and that our efforts led the way to our success today. A bill such as this is the result of great effort on the part of many different people who are not elected to this body but upon whom we all rely. I would like to recognize the staff members who have worked so hard on this bill and deserve much of the credit for its successful passage. On Senator Grassley's staff: Ted Tottman, Linda Fishman, Colin Roskey, Mark Hayes, Jennifer Bell, and Leah Kegler, and on Senator Baucus' staff Jeff Forbes, Liz Fowler, Jon Blum, Pat Bousliman, Kate Kirschgraber, and Andrea Cohen deserve considerable recognition for their tireless efforts. Catherine Finley, Tom Geier, and Carolyn Holmes from my friend Senator Snowe's staff; Patricia DeLoatche and Patricia Knight of Senator Hatch's office; and most especially Senator Breaux's legislative director Sarah Walters and his staff Michelle Easton and Paige Jennings deserve enormous credit for this bill. On my own staff, I particularly want to recognize the contributions of Sherry Kaiman, Eric Silva, and especially Sean Donohue who took up the effort on the tripartisan bill and who has continued to see it through to today's success. Each and all have worked tirelessly to gather the input, analyze the issues, and build a consensus toward achieving this final product.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have raised concerns about the troubling environmental provisions contained in the energy bill conference report several times during the course of debate on the measure, but I also wanted to share my concerns regarding the energy provisions of the bill. Energy policy is an important issue for America and one which my Vermont constituents take very seriously. The bill before us seeks to address important issues, such as the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the tradeoffs between the need for energy and the need to protect the quality of our environment, and the need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the importance of energy policy, this bill is a very serious matter and I do not take a decision to oppose such a bill lightly. In my view, this conference report does not achieve the correct balance on several important energy issues, as well as on a number of environmental issues. In my work on this legislation, I have heard from large numbers of my constituents. They generally regard the bill as legislation written by a handful of people with the purpose of rolling back environmental protections and providing big corporations with giveaways at the expense of average Americans. Wally Elton from Springfield, VT called my office last Tuesday to voice his many concerns about the bill. Mr. Elton is skeptical about many facets of this legislation. ``It makes energy the top priority for public lands, it relaxes clean air and clean water standards, which will have bad effects on public health. There is nothing for conservation--it is all about giving companies subsidies and granting them everything on their 'wish list'. In a time of deficit, we should not be doing this.'' In short, Mr. Elton has deep concern regarding all aspects of this bill, right down to the way it was produced. ``The bill is not a reconciliation of two bills, and was not the product of bipartisan effort,'' he said. ``They just started over.'' Many people echo Mr. Elton's concern about this bill being written behind closed doors, in ``secret.'' My constituents tell me that a bill written without the valid contributions of a wide range of people will not reflect the feelings of the majority of Americans. It is widely known as ``Cheney's bill.'' Carol Groom of Warren said ``They are rolling back our environmental protections and cleanup of MBTE will be put on the taxpayers.'' Mary Lou Treat of Putney, VT is worried about respiratory diseases caused from pollutants from coal-burning factories, while Catherine Audetter, also of Putney, said ``wary of this legislation's unusual support of oil'' and lack of focus on renewables. Susanna Liepmann of South Strafford is concerned about wildlife protection. An energy expert in my State likened this bill to a horror movie: ``My strong recommendation is to oppose this bill in any way you can. This bill should have been released on Halloween--it's a Frankenstein monster of mismatched body parts, most of them bad in and of themselves, and even worse when patched together.'' For example, in the electricity title, it strengthens the hand of FERC by permitting mandatory reliability standards, which is fine, but not as big an improvement as some claim. But it weakens the hand of FERC to require transmission companies to join RTOs, and blocks FERC's hand on moving to better market structures. In New England, this means that transmission companies now rule the roost, and can essentially dictate terms to the ISO--because their participation in the regional pool is voluntary. These are the regional monopolists--why is our ability to regulate them on a regional basis made subject to their voluntary agreement? For another example, this bill is deferring to States by holding back FERC from mandating regional markets; but it harms States by repealing PUHCA without any meaningful replacement. Two years after the Enron disaster, and associated revelations and bankruptcies of many other major players, why are we are repealing PUHCA without any serious look at what would be needed instead? Of course, at a more fundamental level, a bill that gives enormous benefits to fossil extraction industries and does not improve CAFE standards is an embarrassment. The failure is mirrored on the electricity side, where it gives incentives for supply side electricity production and delivery with merely face-saving measures to advance efficiency and renewables. The list could go on. My recommendation to the Senate is to put the Frankenstein bill out of its misery. Stop it any way you can. A filibuster is in order--and it should be about a lot more than MBTE. These examples serve to express my constituents' frustration with this legislation. And their concern is reflected by communication that I have had with other energy sector experts as well. Ralph Nader, long regarded as an expert in vehicle fuel economy, is deeply concerned that this bill does nothing to increase the average fuel efficiency of our passenger cars, which is the worst in 20 years. Steven M. Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said in the New York Times on November 21, 2003, that the vehicle and energy efficiency provisions of the current energy bill ``are only a Band-Aid.'' The 3-month investigation released by a joint U.S.-Canada government task force on the blackout documents a significant and overriding reason for the cascading outage that knocked out electricity from New York to Toronto to Detroit: No one was in charge of the sprawling, heavily loaded and trouble-prone part of the transmission grid running around Lake Erie. The portion of the midwestern grid centered in Ohio has long worried industry regulators, and the energy bill does create operating rules to lessen the risk of blackouts. But this conference report could do much more for reliability such as establishing uniform net metering requirements, promoting the upgrade of existing infrastructure rather than creating a frenzy over the construction of new lines, and investing in the deployment of new transmission technologies. Finally, I have heard from Norman Milleron, former member of Berkeley's Energy Commission in the 1970s, that the country could be doing much more to capture natural gas that is lost or inefficiently combusted at centrally located powerplants, promote the use of distributed generation, and advance research to promote energy efficiency and more effectively generate electricity from biomass. This bill should have contained a renewable portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to generate or purchase a percentage of the electricity they sell from renewable sources. Fifty-three Senators support such a requirement, more than a majority of this body. We can and should do better on renewable energy sources. This bill should have set a serious target, we should have had a floor debate on this issue, and it should have been in the conference report. In addition, this bill repeals the pro-consumer Public Utility Holding Company Act, among the Federal Government's most important mechanisms to protect electricity consumers. The conference report fails to protect electricity consumers, investors, and small businesses from abusive transactions between utilities and affiliate companies within the same corporate family. It also failed to include an amendment that I cosponsored, offered by the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill, which banned all of the Enron-like trading schemes. The Cantwell amendment passed with the support of 57 Senators, and should have been added to this bill. As I have said before, the American people deserve better than this bill, and I cannot vote in favor of it as currently drafted. Both the environmental and the energy provisions of this measure will need to be greatly improved when we return next year to get my vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Paul Wallace-Brodeur, an outstanding Vermonter and a national leader in the area of health care reform. As he prepares to retire from his position as director of the Office of Vermont Health Access in Waterbury, VT, it is important to reflect on how much one person can accomplish in serving others. Paul has been on the forefront of providing individuals with greater access to the health care delivery system. As the State Medicaid director, which is Vermont's second largest insurance program, Paul helped Vermont obtain the distinction of having one of the lowest uninsured rates in the country. Under Paul's leadership, Vermont broadened its eligibility standards and was one of the first States in the country to expand Medicaid services to children under the Dr. Dynasaur program. During his tenure, Medicaid programs grew to cover 143,313 Vermonters. Paul began his career in Vermont as a social worker at the Brandon Training School. He quickly rose to leadership positions as a direct provider and then consultant in the field of mental health, followed by his position as the chief social worker for the Vermont State Hospital. It came as no surprise to those of us who know Paul that he was selected in the mid-1980s to lead the State of Vermont's efforts in creating universal access to health care as the executive director of the Vermont Health Policy Council and through his work for the Vermont Health Care Authority. Also during the mid-1980s he spearheaded the creation of the Vermont Ethics Network, an organization dedicated to increasing the understanding of ethical issues, values, and choices in health and health care. Over the course of 40 years, Paul has been involved with virtually every health policy initiative in Vermont, particularly the State's efforts to expand health coverage. He is personally responsible for authoring Vermont's 1115 waiver, which over the years, and with many amendments, has provided more expansive and flexible Medicaid services to Vermonters. In his quiet unassuming way, Paul is an integral part of the health care delivery system in Vermont and has gained recognition for being a national health policy leader and mentor. He has always brought a steadfast commitment and institutional knowledge to solving the problem at hand while maintaining a vision for improving Vermont's health care system. Paul's unwavering commitment toward improving the health status of every Vermont citizen is a great lesson for all public servants. Vermont is truly indebted to him. His deep commitment to the citizens of the Green Mountain State has endeared him to us. He has our best wishes for the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to Vermont Associates for Training and Development as it celebrates 20 years of service in meeting the employment needs of Vermonters, age 55 and older, who are ready, willing, and able to work. I also acknowledge the organization's founding executive director, Pat Elmer, for her vision, leadership, and management skills as she has guided the organization during the past two decades. The agency has developed a number of programs related to career counseling, job search, and computer training in order to prepare individuals for the work place. In addition, they provide on-the-job training stipends to allow people the opportunity to build their resumes through real-life work experiences. Too often employers may overlook this valuable, and often untapped, resource, which older workers have to offer the workplace. I commend Vermont Associates for leading the way in changing the mindset of many companies by creating new opportunities for employees and employers alike. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, which has jurisdiction over the Older Americans Act, I commend Vermont Associates for their wise and prudent use of funding from this act. Vermont Associates, and their colleagues across the country, were very helpful to me as I chaired the HELP Committee during the long-awaited reauthorization of this legislation. I have a strong admiration for Pat's dedication and the many others, including board members and volunteers, who have built Vermont Associates. Vermont is grateful to Vermont Associates for their steadfast commitment to equal access to employment. Collectively, they have greatly improved the quality of life in our small State. For that, Vermont owes a great deal of gratitude.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have frequently reiterated my conviction that investment in transportation is a means to an end. Our national transportation policy must be designed to serve the public good. In my view, the outcomes we seek are a strong economy, safe and healthy communities, and a clean environment. A balanced transportation system, including a strong freight and passenger rail system, is necessary for us to attain these goals. As ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have been highly involved in the Senate's effort to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation program. Over the past two years, I have traveled around the country, visiting local examples of national transportation challenges. I have heard critiques and suggestions from dozens of transportation officials, users, and advocates. In order to best serve the needs of this country, we must redouble our investment in an efficient, intermodal transportation system. I have often expressed my view that the success of our surface transportation program rests on four fundamental `pillars': First, asset management. We must maintain and preserve existing infrastructure. Second, we must enhance access and mobility, particularly for Americans living in our most congested urban areas. The third pillar is freight and trade. We need new and improved facilities to accommodate the quantity of goods moving through our system. Fourth, I believe that rail is the final component of a successful surface transportation system. We are not currently meeting the nation's freight and passenger rail needs. We must invest in a modern national rail system, comparable to our highway and aviation systems. The bill that we are introducing today will help us achieve that goal. The American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement Act of the 21st Century (ARRIVE 21) strives to provide sustainable, meaningful, and continuous funding opportunities for states that want to improve and expand their rail systems. Currently, the federal government provides few funding sources to assist states in their efforts to maintain and improve freight and passenger rail service. This bill creates a nonprofit, public-private partnership--the Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation (RIFCO)--with the authority to issue $30 billion in tax-credit bonds over six years. With the resulting revenue, RIFCO will award capital grants to states and to Amtrak. My State of Vermont has long displayed a commitment to maintaining an effective and efficient freight and passenger rail system. This legislation would provide Vermont a significant new source of revenue to fund capital projects such as rail line rehabilitation, safety and security projects, and development of intermodal facilities. In fact, grants awarded by RIFCO could be used to reimburse States for the capital investments they've already made, a provision that is particularly helpful to States, like Vermont, that have invested State money into eligible projects. For Amtrak, this legislation introduces financial and policy commitments to dramatically improve passenger rail service in this country. We envision a future that includes a healthy and efficient passenger rail system and provide the resources to move Amtrak in that direction. ARRIVE 21 authorizes approximately $1.5 billion per year, for six years, for capital and operating expenses. We have under-funded Amtrak for too long. This funding level will provide Amtrak the resources it needs to address urgent infrastructure needs and system-wide service improvements. Amtrak will also benefit from provisions in this bill that encourage long-term sustainability and enhanced operations. ARRIVE 21 requires improved accounting procedures and oversight. Additionally, states that currently share responsibility with Amtrak for supporting services through or within their states will see changes to equalize their cost burden. This bill requires that Amtrak, in collaboration with the Department of Transportation, adopt fair and uniform standards for cost sharing on short-distance services that states contract with Amtrak to provide. ARRIVE 21 also directs an independent study to research Amtrak's current and past procedures for determining intercity passenger rail routes and services. The study will recommend changes to that process to improve the efficiency, accessibility, and effectiveness of our national rail service. I have long been a strong advocate for rail. I firmly believe that nation-wide investment in freight and passenger rail infrastructure will invite rewards in the form of reduced congestion, improved environmental quality, and improved mobility options for our nation's travelers. ARRIVE 21 encourages States, and the Federal Government, to more fully integrate freight and passenger rail into the surface transportation system. Improved rail planning policy, at both the Federal and State levels, will enhance the efficiency and longevity of our transportation system and will promote safe, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation options.