Jim Jeffords

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.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have been listening closely to our colleagues and their many statements of support or opposition to the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. Some have said this is the culmination of the debate we began last year. But this debate is much older than just a year, or even 2 years. The debate as to whether, and if so how, to provide prescription drugs for the elderly through the Medicare program has been with us since the very beginning of the program. Thirty-eight years ago, when this body engaged in the historic debate on the original Medicare bill, Senator Jacob Javits from the state of New York offered an amendment to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries would have access to prescription drugs. Senator Javits was asked to modify his amendment to a study that would examine the assurance of paying for drugs, methods of avoiding unnecessary utilization of drugs and mechanisms for controlling costs. Now, almost 40 years later, they are still debating the very same issues that were part of the 1965 Javits debate. We should enact a prescription drug benefit today. The doom and gloom scenario painted by the bill's opponents is as exaggerated as the claims that this bill will solve all seniors' needs. It is time to put aside our differences for the good of all seniors. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a very good bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS. May I have an additional 1 minute?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Forty million seniors and disabled Americans need help now. They cannot afford to wait for a perfect program because it may never come. The bill provides the foundations we need. In the final analysis, I find there are more reasons to support this bill than to oppose it. I fear that if we do not take this golden opportunity, we will have lost it forever. We have on one hand the opportunity to provide the largest benefit improvements to Medicare in nearly 40 years, including a comprehensive and universal prescription drug benefit. On the other hand, we can turn away from the proposal before us today, and return yet again to the drawing board in search of perfection. I believe it is time that we begin to offer a real benefit instead of more studies, more analysis and more delay. We should enact a prescription drug benefit today. Let's take a moment to look at some of the issues, because I think it is worth dwelling on why I think we should vote in support of this measure. Vermont already has one of the most generous prescription drug programs for the elderly and disabled. As part of a waiver through the Medicaid program, Vermont expanded its ``V-Script'' state pharmacy assistance program and extended subsidized coverage to individuals at 250 percent of poverty, well above the income levels that provide subsidies in this measure. In fact, the Vermont V-Script program is so generous that some have argued that people will be worse off with a less-generous Federal benefit. I don't think that's the case. First, in today's economy there is no guarantee that Vermont will be able to continue its current level of support for the V-Script program. But this bill dedicates almost $400 billion to the development of a universal prescription drug program, representing the largest expansion of the Medicare program since its inception. This bill will guarantee a comprehensive and universal drug benefit to 41 million seniors in America. That includes all 93,000 seniors in my own home state of Vermont. And, it guarantees the same coverage to the millions of baby-boomers who will soon rely on Medicare. 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 fact, nearly one-third of all seniors nationwide will receive assistance for nearly 90 percent of their drug costs. Additionally, Medicare, instead of Medicaid, will now assume the prescription drug costs for 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. Finally, the bill includes provisions that will allow States such as Vermont that have pharmacy assistance programs to augment, or ``wrap- around'' the Federal Medicare benefit with State resources. In fact, there is nothing in the legislation that would preclude Vermont, should it wish, from using the savings to establish its own prescription drug plan as long as it meets the requirements of the bill. Some of our colleagues have criticized this bill, arguing that it would lead to an increase in employers dropping or reducing prescription drug coverage for its retirees. I have looked at the estimates put forth by the Congressional Budget Office and the employee benefit think tanks, and I am concerned with those numbers. But again, it is important to consider this potential downside in light of what is already occurring. The number of employers providing prescription drug benefits has already been steadily declining for years, and without this Federal guarantee those disenfranchised workers would not have any benefit at all. In short, no senior, regardless of income, will go without prescription drug coverage in Vermont or throughout America once this legislation is enacted. That is, in part, why two of the largest national aging organizations such as AARP and the National Council of Older Americans supports this legislation. And it why the Vermont AARP supports it as well. Perhaps most important of all is the $25 billion for rural providers, ending years of unfair payments to rural hospitals, doctors and other providers. This bill will ensure reliable access to health care services for seniors by better compensating health care providers. I have already seen estimates that these rural provisions will provide Vermont hospitals with an additional $41 million over the next 10 years, and physicians will get a boost of $18 million in reimbursements over the next 2 years. I have received many announcements from many Vermont constituents and stakeholders, including the Vermont AARP, the Fletcher Allen Health Center, the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. I am also glad that Chairman Grassley and ranking member Baucus have worked with me to address another inequity in the system. Critical access hospitals provide care in some of the most underserved regions of Vermont, as is the case throughout rural America. These hospitals are small, yet serve as critical resources to their communities. So I am pleased to see that the conferees retained a provision from the Senate measure that will allow critical access hospitals, such as Mt. Ascutney Hospital in Windsor, VT, to expand access to psychiatric and rehabilitative services to the most vulnerable citizens in that community. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the conferees for retaining another key provision from the Senate bill that will begin a major demonstration on improving quality and patient outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries. This is the result of several years of working in concert with Dr. Jack Wennberg at Dartmouth College to bring greater attention to the regional disparities in the consumption of health resources without the improvement in health outcomes to show for it. I acknowledge the sentiments of many of my colleagues here today. I too 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, after all of the time that has been spent on trying to develop a Medicare plan for prescription drugs--38 years--it would be a missed opportunity if we reject this good beginning to comprehensive coverage. By passing this bill, we are laying the foundation. A foundation that requires constant vigilance, as has the original Medicare program. So in closing, I would like to urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this bill as we move forward. This bill will establish a drug benefit that is universal, comprehensive, affordable, and sustainable. This bill restores necessary and long-needed fairness to our physicians and providers in rural areas. And, the bill will improve the quality of care offered under Medicare. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the measure. I ask unanimous consent to have the following article printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, together with Senators Hatch and Snowe, I am introducing, the Retirement Account Portability and Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation improves the portability of retirement savings by eliminating unnecessary complexities and barriers in the retirement savings system, and helps preserve retirement savings by giving American workers tools that will help them consolidate their retirement savings into one easily managed account. 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) of 403(b) savings when they change jobs and move between 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 non-elective 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. Another provision in the bill would end an unfair tax penalty faced by non-spouse beneficiaries. Today, when an employee dies, the benefits in that employee's retirement account are paid out to a non-spouse beneficiary in one payment. The beneficiary must pay tax on the entire amount, and is often forced into a higher tax bracket as a result of the payment. A provision in this bill would allow non-spouse beneficiaries--siblings, children, domestic partners, parents--to roll over the money from the plan to an IRA. This will prevent an immediate tax bite to grieving beneficiaries and allow them to withdraw the money from their IRA over five years or over their own life expectancy. 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. Employees of state and local governments, including teachers, will benefit from 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 would clarify eligibility rights of certain state and local employees who participate in a Section 457 deferred compensation plan. Congress must take every opportunity to encourage American workers not only to save for retirement, but also to preserve those hard-earned retirement savings. These portability improvements offer one set of tools for making it easier to navigate the retirement savings system and reach retirement with an adequate nest egg. There are many pressing and complex retirement issues that demand attention, but I am hopeful that this legislation, narrowly focused on portability, can be considered quickly and on its own merits.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, America needs an energy policy, but not this one. This bill fails to provide a realistic, sustainable energy plan for America's future. Observers have called this Energy bill ``three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics.'' They call it a complete waste of energy and say it fails to address the fuel and power needs of the average American. They are absolutely right. The bill includes environmental rollbacks. It threatens public health. It weakens consumer protections against electricity market manipulation. It gives out billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear industries. The rollback of three of our most fundamental environmental laws--the Clean Air Act, the Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act--is terrible environmental policy. This bill allows more smog pollution. This bill exempts all oil and gas construction activities from the Clean Water Act. The Senate's renewable portfolio standard requiring utilities to generate 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020 was struck from the bill. What we needed was a bill to decrease our energy dependence on foreign oil, but this bill will not conserve a drop of oil. We need to protect our consumers, our public lands, and our public health. Instead, this bill weakens protections. We need to give a boost to the renewable energy sector, but instead the bill is a kickback to the fossil fuel industry. We now need to do the right thing and oppose cloture. We need to spend more time developing the right energy policy for America. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about several provisions found in the FAA reauthorization conference report. Before the Senate passed S. 824, the FAA reauthorization bill, we expressly prohibited additional privatization of air traffic controllers. We also eliminated a proposed cost-sharing requirement for local communities that participate in the essential air service program. This requirement would have placed an insurmountable burden on many remote communities struggling to maintain commercial air service. While I understand that Administrator Blakey today has promised our Senate colleagues to forestall privatization until the next fiscal year, I am concerned that the window is nevertheless open for eventual privatization and would not support such a result. I remain concerned about the provisions in this bill affecting the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. As I discussed in my statement of November 17, 2003, the legal obligations of Federal agencies to evaluate aviation projects under Federal environmental laws have not been repealed by the language in this bill, nor should they be. If better coordination is the intent of this legislation, there is ample authority contained in the existing NEPA statute and regulations for coordination among Federal agencies in performing required environmental reviews of these projects. The confusing statutory directions contained in this bill are both unnecessary and counterproductive if the desired result is efficient project completion. I am disappointed that this conference report contains these provisions, and I will work to ensure that the FAA scrutinizes the potential consequences of privatization of air traffic controllers if that issue arises next year. In addition, as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will continue to conduct oversight pertaining to the implementation of environmental laws for these and other Federal projects.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, together with Senators Hatch and Snowe, I am introducing, the Retirement Account Portability and Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation improves the portability of retirement savings by eliminating unnecessary complexities and barriers in the retirement savings system, and helps preserve retirement savings by giving American workers tools that will help them consolidate their retirement savings into one easily managed account. 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) of 403(b) savings when they change jobs and move between 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 non-elective 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. Another provision in the bill would end an unfair tax penalty faced by non-spouse beneficiaries. Today, when an employee dies, the benefits in that employee's retirement account are paid out to a non-spouse beneficiary in one payment. The beneficiary must pay tax on the entire amount, and is often forced into a higher tax bracket as a result of the payment. A provision in this bill would allow non-spouse beneficiaries--siblings, children, domestic partners, parents--to roll over the money from the plan to an IRA. This will prevent an immediate tax bite to grieving beneficiaries and allow them to withdraw the money from their IRA over five years or over their own life expectancy. 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. Employees of state and local governments, including teachers, will benefit from 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 would clarify eligibility rights of certain state and local employees who participate in a Section 457 deferred compensation plan. Congress must take every opportunity to encourage American workers not only to save for retirement, but also to preserve those hard-earned retirement savings. These portability improvements offer one set of tools for making it easier to navigate the retirement savings system and reach retirement with an adequate nest egg. There are many pressing and complex retirement issues that demand attention, but I am hopeful that this legislation, narrowly focused on portability, can be considered quickly and on its own merits.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Dairy Farm Workers Fairness Act. Family dairy farms are critically important to our agricultural economy and to the rural way of life in many parts of the country. These farms support the rural economy by supporting the local tax base and many local businesses. The working landscape created by our farms, especially a patchwork of small farms, is also the best antidote for the urban sprawl that is overtaking so much of the country. And, of course, the availability of fresh, locally produced milk is an amenity that we have come to take for granted. To support our rural economies, the working landscape and our local food supply systems we need to help small family dairy farms survive and thrive. The most difficult challenge to the family dairy farm, after the volatility in milk price, is finding and hiring workers. In my home State of Vermont, dairy farms are not only an important part of our economy; they are an institution that has come to define our landscape. Vermont's beauty lies in the green fields, the red barns and the cows grazing on the hillside. When a farm family sells their land, which in many cases may have been worked by them and their ancestors for 5 or more generations, the decision is often driven by the non-stop, 7 day a week, 365 days a year work schedule. As fewer rural residents choose to work in agriculture, these farmers have been forced to take on more themselves. The whole family can end up working without vacations, sick leave or having weekends off. Although dairy farming might not seem seasonal, the burden becomes particularly heavy during the growing season when planting, haying, harvesting and storage of feed must all occur. Dairy farmers are being forced to explore other options to find a predictable source of qualified labor. While other agricultural businesses in the country benefit from the temporary workers qualified under the H2A Work Visa Program, dairy farms do not. The job of milking cows on dairy farms has been judged under the current H2A program to not meet the definition of temporary or seasonal and is thus excluded. The largest labor need on dairy farms during the growing season, remains the need for assistance with milking. The cows must be milked two or three times a day by hired help so the farmer is able to take on the more complex and specialized work of operating large machinery to plant and harvest. While the work of milking is not seasonal or temporary, the need for additional labor to accomplish the work is seasonal and temporary. I believe the exclusion of dairy farming under the H2A program is an unintended problem in definitions, and our legislation is designed to fix that glitch. We must do this out of fairness, so that dairy farms can benefit from the same access to labor that other farms have, and more importantly to help our farms survive. Recently, I heard from a farmer who owns and operates, along with his wife, a small dairy farm in central Vermont. The couple is nearing retirement age and have no children of their own. They had attempted to find a farm hand that could live on the farm and help with milking and some of the heavier chores. After placing ads in the paper and working with the state of Vermont's Department of Employment and Training, it became clear that their best option was to hire a family friend who had a strong desire to learn farming. Since the young man was from Honduras they began the visa process only to have their request for certification by the U.S. Department of Labor denied because their need was considered neither temporary nor seasonal. This farm plays such an important role in their rural Vermont community that I heard from several other constituents who asked for my assistance on this family's behalf. The couple continues to work their land but in doing so they are straining their health and pushing themselves harder than they should. They continue to operate their farm because they do not want to sell it since it is land that has been farmed for generations. The legislation I am introducing today would allow this family farm, and so many others like it, to avail themselves of a labor source that exists for virtually every other farm in this country. By creating a period based on the summer growing season, dairy farms will be able to bring on extra help during the busiest part of the year, providing much needed relief for our farm families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting dairy farms across the United States by cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Dairy Farm Workers Fairness Act. Family dairy farms are critically important to our agricultural economy and to the rural way of life in many parts of the country. These farms support the rural economy by supporting the local tax base and many local businesses. The working landscape created by our farms, especially a patchwork of small farms, is also the best antidote for the urban sprawl that is overtaking so much of the country. And, of course, the availability of fresh, locally produced milk is an amenity that we have come to take for granted. To support our rural economies, the working landscape and our local food supply systems we need to help small family dairy farms survive and thrive. The most difficult challenge to the family dairy farm, after the volatility in milk price, is finding and hiring workers. In my home State of Vermont, dairy farms are not only an important part of our economy; they are an institution that has come to define our landscape. Vermont's beauty lies in the green fields, the red barns and the cows grazing on the hillside. When a farm family sells their land, which in many cases may have been worked by them and their ancestors for 5 or more generations, the decision is often driven by the non-stop, 7 day a week, 365 days a year work schedule. As fewer rural residents choose to work in agriculture, these farmers have been forced to take on more themselves. The whole family can end up working without vacations, sick leave or having weekends off. Although dairy farming might not seem seasonal, the burden becomes particularly heavy during the growing season when planting, haying, harvesting and storage of feed must all occur. Dairy farmers are being forced to explore other options to find a predictable source of qualified labor. While other agricultural businesses in the country benefit from the temporary workers qualified under the H2A Work Visa Program, dairy farms do not. The job of milking cows on dairy farms has been judged under the current H2A program to not meet the definition of temporary or seasonal and is thus excluded. The largest labor need on dairy farms during the growing season, remains the need for assistance with milking. The cows must be milked two or three times a day by hired help so the farmer is able to take on the more complex and specialized work of operating large machinery to plant and harvest. While the work of milking is not seasonal or temporary, the need for additional labor to accomplish the work is seasonal and temporary. I believe the exclusion of dairy farming under the H2A program is an unintended problem in definitions, and our legislation is designed to fix that glitch. We must do this out of fairness, so that dairy farms can benefit from the same access to labor that other farms have, and more importantly to help our farms survive. Recently, I heard from a farmer who owns and operates, along with his wife, a small dairy farm in central Vermont. The couple is nearing retirement age and have no children of their own. They had attempted to find a farm hand that could live on the farm and help with milking and some of the heavier chores. After placing ads in the paper and working with the state of Vermont's Department of Employment and Training, it became clear that their best option was to hire a family friend who had a strong desire to learn farming. Since the young man was from Honduras they began the visa process only to have their request for certification by the U.S. Department of Labor denied because their need was considered neither temporary nor seasonal. This farm plays such an important role in their rural Vermont community that I heard from several other constituents who asked for my assistance on this family's behalf. The couple continues to work their land but in doing so they are straining their health and pushing themselves harder than they should. They continue to operate their farm because they do not want to sell it since it is land that has been farmed for generations. The legislation I am introducing today would allow this family farm, and so many others like it, to avail themselves of a labor source that exists for virtually every other farm in this country. By creating a period based on the summer growing season, dairy farms will be able to bring on extra help during the busiest part of the year, providing much needed relief for our farm families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting dairy farms across the United States by cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on Monday, I addressed the Senate to share my concerns about the environmental impact of the Energy conference report. These provisions are a direct reflection of the manner in which this bill was developed and the flawed conference process used to produce it. Nearly 100 sections of this bill are in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We were not consulted on any of these provisions--not on any of them. In some cases, such as on the issue of nuclear security, the Environment and Public Works Committee reported legislation on a bipartisan basis. The Senate could have taken up the reported bill and passed it. Instead, they stuck the provisions of the original introduced version of this bill in this report. Now my committee will likely have to go back and clean up this language if the bill becomes law. This could have been avoided, if the conferees had spoken to my committee in the first place. I am deeply concerned that the conference report before us does not represent the kind of forward-looking, balanced energy policy that our Nation needs. As I mentioned earlier this week, it does not go far enough in reducing our reliance on imported oil. Further, the bill fails to provide appropriate and adequate remedies to prevent a recurrence of the electricity blackout the Northeast experienced this summer or the crisis that the West experienced 3 years ago. The Energy legislation fails to address other important issues such as a renewable portfolio standard or climate change. The bill contains waivers of environmental laws, and it provides for unjustified subsidies and porkbarrel programs. But, worst of all, this bill seriously harms our environment. On November 7, 2003, I wrote all Members of the Senate listing seven of what I believe to be the most troubling environmental provisions of this conference report. The Environment and Public Works Committee has jurisdiction over all of these items. Six of the seven items outlined in my letter are now in the bill. The bill has not one but two provisions extending compliance deadlines for Federal ozone pollution standards. I also mentioned in my letter that I was concerned the bill would delay our new Federal mercury emission standards for utilities. It doesn't do that. Instead, it authorizes $1.5 billion in compliance assistance grants for the utilities. Instead, the bill proposes to pay up to 50 percent of these compliance costs. This is poor policy. I would like to review the status of some of the other provisions I described in my November 7 letter in more detail. First, I would like to let colleagues know that the renewable fuels title in the conference report differs significantly from the language reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee in the 107th Congress. The provisions that my committee reported were ones contained in the energy legislation that the Senate passed this year and last year. This conference report will shield companies that make, use, or market toxic gasoline additive MTBE from Federal and State product liability lawsuits. Let me repeat that. It will shield companies that make, use, or market the toxic gasoline additive MTBE from Federal and State product liability lawsuits. MTBE has contaminated ground water in every State of this Nation. This provision was not included in the Senate-passed bill. This provision shifts an estimated $29 billion in cleanup costs from oil and chemical companies to State and local American taxpayers. The General Accounting Office estimates that there are at least 150,000 MTBE-contaminated sites nationwide. Vermont has 851 of those sites. Public and private drinking water systems in my State have been polluted by MTBE. If the water right here in the Capitol building was contaminated with MTBE, we would ban this toxin today. Even though we know MTBE is environmentally harmful, the conference report dramatically extends the time that this product can be added to our gasoline before we pull it off the market. In fact, it may be extended forever. Besides the MTBE problem, the renewable fuels provisions in this conference report are deeply flawed. The Senate's renewable fuels title was a carefully drafted package which balanced regional interests. Now, it is unbalanced in so many ways. For instance, the Senate put positive environmental provisions into our renewable fuels package. One provision allowed Northeastern States to require reformulated gasoline statewide. We also provided the Environmental Protection Agency with the authority to better regulate fuel additives to prevent future MTBE-like situations. We provided States with authority to reduce the emissions from fuels if too much ethanol was being used. These are all gone. Although I support renewable fuels and ethanol, this package has changed so dramatically that it is harmful to the air and water. I cannot support using the fuels provisions of the Clean Air Act to damage air quality. A second item from my letter is the treatment of ozone pollution standards in the conference report. The conferees have agreed to include an extraneous new provision amending the ozone nonattainment designation process in Title I of the Clean Air Act. This is the part of the act that officially tells the public how dirty or clean the air is. It tells the public whether their area meets the health-based ozone standards and it determines what must be done to help clean up the air in that area and for its downwind areas. This is an entirely new provision, it was not considered by either the Senate or the House of Representatives. This provision, inserted in the secret conference, would allow polluted areas off the hook for controlling ozone pollution for years at a time. It would extend the deadline for compliance with the ozone standard almost indefinitely for many areas. It would also reach back in time and declare some cities with serious air quality problems as ``clean.'' This whole provision is a direct attack on the Clean Air Act and bad for public health. As a result, people downwind will suffer. The air of the communities downwind of these ``extended compliance'' or ``reclassified'' areas will get dirtier. There will be more asthma and more respiratory problems. This provision is not the answer to transported pollution. The answer is for this administration to get cracking on protecting air quality. Changing cities' ozone compliance deadlines under the Clean Air Act does not increase our Nation's alternative energy supplies. This provision is not an energy policy measure. It does not offer an energy-related solution to compliance with ozone pollution standards, and does not belong in this bill. The changes put in here by a Congressman from Texas are also unfair to States and cities that have already achieved compliance with the national ozone standards. These States and cities have worked hard and invested resources in controlling their pollution. All their work will have been for naught. There are other cities that have been ``bumped up'' or classified as having more serious ozone problems. EPA has already asked them to undertake more stringent ozone control efforts. These stronger measures are already required and being implemented in numerous cities throughout the Nation including: Chicago, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Wilmington, Trenton, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. Mr. President, in addition to this general assault on public health, the conferees have included one other little gem. EPA is prohibited from imposing any requirements of the Clean Air Act on an area of Southwest Michigan for 2 years. Obviously, this provision was also not contained in either the Senate or House bills. Nor is it good public health policy. Not only is the Clean Air Act substantially amended in this bill, but the Clean Water Act is as as well. The conferees have included language similar to a provision in the House-passed bill that exempts oil and gas exploration and production activities from the Clean Water Act stormwater program. The Clean Water Act requires permits for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity. The conference report exempts oil and gas construction sites from stormwater pollution control requirements. The scope of the provision is extremely broad. Stormwater runoff typically contains pollutants such as oil and grease, chemicals, nutrients, metals, bacteria, and particulates. According to EPA estimates, this change would exempt at least 30,000 small oil and gas sites from clean water requirements. That is a terrible rollback of current law. Another troubling section of this bill is the leaking underground storage tank provisions. This issue is also in the Environment and Public Works Committee jurisdiction. This is another case where my committee unanimously passed a bill that is stronger than the provisions in this conference report. The conference report's inspection provisions are so lax that a tank last inspected in 1999 may not be reinspected until 2009. The bill my committee passed, and that I supported, would require inspections of all tanks every 2 years. While the underground tank program needs reform, the conference report takes a step backward. It allows leaking tanks to remain undetected for years. And, in many cases, it allows the polluter off the hook for cleaning up his own mess. Let's review what we are debating today: An energy bill. Actually, it is an energy producers' bill; an energy polluters' bill; an energy profiteers' bill. The three Ps: Producers, polluters, profiteers. I would like to focus briefly on the polluters. A senior member of the conference committee reported that, yes, this bill will not reduce our reliance on polluting sources of energy. But it will secure our energy independence. I agree with the first statement, that with this bill our Nation becomes more addicted to energy sources that pollute. In fact, I would say that this energy bill equals pollution. Four words and a numeric symbol say it all here on my chart. Energy bill equals pollution. This bill pollutes our surface and groundwater by exempting oil and gas development from provisions of the Clean Water Act. This bill pollutes our drinking water by allowing MTBE, a toxic fuel additive, to seep into our public and private drinking water systems. This bill pollutes our land by allowing unlimited development of energy installations on public lands, including parks, wildlife refuges, and sensitive areas. And this bill pollutes our air in so many different ways; primarily by extending pollution compliance deadlines and continuing to avoid serious progress in cleaning up our air. Pollution, that is what we are voting on in this legislation. A vote for this bill is a vote for greater pollution. This is wrong. The American people do not want energy security at the expense of the environment. The word ``conservation'' and the word ``conservative'' are closely related. I am an independent Senator, but I consider myself to be a careful legislator. I seek to be conservative. I try not to support legislation that exploits our natural resources and pollutes our environment. This bill abandons that approach. It is an aggressive, overreaching measure. I oppose this bill, and all other Senators should as well. Mr. President, one last thing I should note for interested Members is that this Barton ozone provision is not the same as the former Clinton ``bump-up'' policy. That policy was a case-by-case basis and it applied only to the outgoing 1-hour ozone standard. Also, the areas receiving the benefit of not being ``bumped-up'' to a higher nonattainment status under the Clinton policy had to demonstrate that their emissions did not cause problems downwind. That protection appears nowhere in Barton. This Barton provision completely disrupts the Clean Air Act's designation process and appears to do it indefinitely. I hope the Congressman from Texas is willing to pay the hospital and doctor bills of all the children whose health he and his Congress will damage if this bad bill becomes law. Every person who votes for cloture and for this bill should also be held responsible. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page explanation of how the Barton provision is different from the former Clinton policy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if I may? I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I recognize the outstanding contributions made by Edith Miller, outgoing Executive Director for the Vermont School Boards Association, VSBA. Edie, as she is known to her colleagues, friends, and family, joined the Vermont School Boards Association in December 1997 after previously serving for many years as the director of the University of Vermont's Continuing Education Program. Edie also served with great distinction on numerous boards dedicated to the arts and community welfare. Her participation in local government is noteworthy. She has worn many hats, from holding positions on the town zoning and planning commissions to her current role as Chair of the East Montpelier Select Board. I also had the pleasure and benefit of having her husband, Martin Miller, on staff during my tenure as Vermont Attorney General from 1969 through 1972. Over the years, various individuals have described Edie Miller as a strong and articulate voice in support of public education. She possesses a tireless work ethic and an ability to identify critical issues, analyze the information, and communicate that information not only to the VSBA members, but also to local State and Federal officials. Edie was a driving force in the creation and implementation of the Vermont Education Leadership Alliance Project, VELA. She worked diligently with her colleagues in the Vermont Superintendents Association and the Vermont Principals' Association to address the critical shortage of principals, superintendents and school board members in Vermont. The program was designed to train and certify school leaders, thereby increasing their effectiveness and reducing turnover. Although VELA is now under the capable leadership of David Ford, Edie still remains very active on its Board of Directors. Her remarkable skill at working with a broad constituency has earned Edie enormous respect within Vermont's education community. Edie is not afraid to pursue any idea that she believes will improve outcomes for Vermont's children. To underscore my efforts to increase funding of special education, Edie met with members of every school board throughout Vermont, convincing them to sign a petition asking the federal government to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This was not an easy task, but she persevered. These petitions were presented to me in Vermont, bound in a red ribbon. During Senate debate of the various special education funding proposals I have sponsored, I take these petitions with me to the chamber. I can tell you that those petitions have made a deep impression on my colleagues. I have been very fortunate to work closely with Edie on a number of education issues. I have always appreciated her keen insight and her insistence on carefully weighing all aspects of proposals before making a policy decision. For Edie, it is important to increase educational opportunities for all students. For Edie, first and foremost, it is and always will be about the kids. Edie has left an indelible mark on Vermont's education landscape. Though she may be stepping away from her responsibilities at VSBA, I know she will not be stepping away from education. So, it is with great pleasure that I offer my congratulations to Edie Miller on her stellar accomplishments as executive director for the Vermont School Boards Association and her unyielding commitment to the education of Vermont's children.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn yesterday of the death in Iraq of another of Vermont's sons. LT Pierre Piche of Starksboro, VT was one of 17 brave young soldiers who died in the crash of two Blackhawk helicopters last Saturday. This brings to five the number of Vermonters who have given their lives in Iraq. The newspaper articles reporting on the death of Lieutenant Piche, and also on the Nov. 7 death of SSG Scott Rose, a young man whose wife and parents in-law are from Springfield, VT, bring home the heart- wrenching pain felt by those who have lost a son or daughter, mother or father, sister or brother, or close friend in this war. Lieutenant Piche was Lisa Johnson's only child. Ms. Johnson speaks of the daily anxiety she faced hearing the reports of dead and wounded and wondering if it was her son. At first, she turned for consolation to her father, a World War II veteran. Tragically, he died in July. Hearing reports of the helicopter crash last Saturday, she spent the rest of the weekend with her stomach in knots until she received a phone call from her daughter in-law, Cherish, with the simple, chilling words ``They're here.'' Army officers had come to Lieutenant Piche's home to tell his wife that the lieutenant was dead. An hour later, officers arrived at Ms. Johnson's home to deliver the same message. Staff Sergeant Rose became a father for the first time on July 31. He never saw his child, though. He already had left for Iraq and was unable to get home on leave before the tragic crash that ended his life. His wife Michele Rose is now left to raise their infant daughter in his absence. I have been concerned throughout this conflict, and most particularly during the recent debate on the President's request for an additional $87 billion, that our focus on the financial costs and broader strategic and tactical questions associated with the war has blinded us somewhat to the brutal anguish faced by those who have lost a loved one in Iraq. We must never forget that each and every casualty suffered in Iraq delivers a crushing blow to many here at home. Moreover, we must have sympathy for the terrible anxiety faced daily by the families of men and women serving in Iraq. This war has many victims and we must not lose sight of their pain. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the two newspaper articles detailing this war's effects on the lives of these two Vermont families. There being objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Burlington Free Press, Nov. 18, 2003] Fifth Vermont Soldier Dies in Iraq (By Brent Hallenbeck) Starksboro.--Pierre Piche last spoke to his mother a few weeks ago by phone from Iraq. He told her he wanted to come home to his wife of 3 years and earn his master's degree so he could become a teacher. His mother had recently sent him a rubber koi fish, and he said he planned to have a pond filled with the tranquil Japanese fish. ``He tried not to focus on how dangerous it was getting over there. He just wanted peace,'' his mother, Lisa Johnson, said Monday afternoon at her home in Starksboro. ``He was determined to do what he needed to do to keep his men safe and get home.'' Piche, 28 and 16 of his fellow soldiers died Saturday when their Black Hawk helicopters crashed, possibly as a result of enemy fire, in Mosul, Iraq. The crash is the single deadliest incident since the war began in Iraq 8 months ago. Piche, a first lieutenant with the Army's 101st Airborne Division, is the fifth soldier with Vermont roots to die in the war. He is the only child of Lisa Johnson, who has wanted to pull Piche back into her arms ever since he was deployed to Iraq a month before the war began. ``I wanted to take him home. When your child goes into something dangerous, a mother goes and gets him,'' Johnson said, fighting tears. ``It's been a pretty hellish time since February.'' Piche grew up in Colchester, where he attended Malletts Bay School. His mother remembers that Piche was a complex child who would ask heavy questions about the origins of the universe or the workings of the human body and expect, almost demand, an answer. ``When he was born I called him my Mr. Magoo because he was this very serious little boy,'' she said, pointing to a photograph of her and her 2-year-old son sitting in the woods. The child was wearing an expression that was intense but wise. ``He was like a little old man right away,'' she said. He was also ``full of all the right kind of mischief,'' according to Hugh Johnson, who became his stepfather when Piche was 6. He remembers once that his stepson tried unsuccessfully to ride his bike up a boat ramp on dry land. ``Suddenly there was a great tumbling of boy and steel,'' Hugh Johnson said. The family moved when Piche was 9 to South Hero, where he attended Folsom School. Lisa Johnson said he demonstrated his kindly nature by taking in all sorts of animals, from dogs and cats to iguanas, chickens and geese. The family moved to Starksboro when Piche was 14. He went to private school in Connecticut, then college, including for a time the University of Vermont. He graduated from Middle Tennessee State in 1998 after majoring in political science. Piche was always patriotic and believed in serving his country, his mother said. While in college he joined the Army Reserve and soon after entered the Army full-time, rising through the ranks of the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, KY, where he and his wife, Cherish, made their home. Pierre Piche made his final visit to Vermont last Christmas. Friends and family came to Starksboro for festive holiday parties. He took Cherish Piche, who has lived in the South most of her life, out for snowmobile rides and sledding expeditions. War in Iraq was looming last December, and Piche and his mother knew he was likely to be deployed. ``I deliberately avoided that subject,'' Lisa Johnson said. ``He didn't want to talk about it either. We knew, and there wasn't any point.'' She held out hope he would be safe. Months earlier, he had switched jobs, from a command post to maintenance duties that would perhaps be less risky. ``The idea was he wouldn't be out there on the front line,'' Hugh Johnson said. Piche arrived in Iraq 9 months ago, and the Johnsons followed the news intently from Starksboro. Whenever Lisa Johnson heard a soldier died anywhere near where she believed her son was she would cry, and immediately struggle to gather her senses--as a social worker, she said it was essential to be composed. Her father, Robert Fusco of Jonesville, would console her. A World War II veteran, Fusco would tell her Piche was well- trained, smart and vigilant, and would make sure he and his soldiers would come home. ``Anytime I got scared my father would tell me to toughen up,'' Lisa Johnson said. Fusco died of heart failure July 8, proud to the end of his grandson's accomplishments. Piche e-mailed his mother often, and recently sent photos showing him in his cropped brown hair and brown camouflage while holding an automatic weapon. Another photo showed him in uniform holding a dog. Lisa Johnson said he frequently discovered abandoned pets in Iraq and tried to find good homes for them. ``Even in the middle of chaos he could find good things,'' she said. ``That's what good guys do.'' Piche's unit was being moved from one location to another Saturday, a move he was dreading. He told his mother that Iraq was becoming a more dangerous place--more aggressive, less predictable. She heard Saturday about the two helicopters crashing in Mosul. ``I spent the rest of the weekend in knots,'' she said. She and Cherish Piche spoke by phone all day Saturday, telling each other that they hoped by some fluke Piche was not on either of those helicopters, and just couldn't get to a computer to e-mail either of them to say he was safe. Then Cherish Piche called Sunday afternoon. Her words were simple: ``They're here.'' Army soldiers had come to her home at Fort Campbell to say that her husband was dead. An hour later, at 5 p.m., two soldiers came to the gray Cape Cod on Big Hollow Road to give Lisa and Hugh Johnson the same news. ``I just said, `No, no, no,' and I went outside and I was crazy,'' Lisa Johnson said. She wandered through the miles of woods behind her home. ``I just cried and screamed--`No, it can't be, it just can't be.' '' Hugh Johnson said he knows that if he could, his stepson would have been trying to save his fellow soldiers until the last minute. Pride doesn't translate to solace, not when parents are mourning the loss of a son who was always giving to others. ``It's such a waste,'' Hugh Johnson said. ``He should have had another 60 years of doing that.'' ``I'm proud of him and I'm proud of him no matter what,'' Lisa Johnson said. ``That doesn't make his dying any easier.'' The Johnsons and Piche's widow are making funeral arrangements while awaiting for his body to return home. Lisa Johnson said they hope to bury him near his grandfather, Fusco, at Holy Rosary Cemetery in Richmond. Meanwhile, the family is welcoming a constant flow of visitors bearing generous amounts of food and any words of consolation they can muster. The food and the words are appreciated, Lisa Johnson said, but not important. ``All that matters,'' she said, ``is that they loved him.''

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in January 2003, the Senate approved a very similar amendment by Senator Inhofe to the Fiscal Year 2003 consolidated appropriations bill. That amendment initiated a study at the National Academy of Sciences to look at the effects of the EPA's first set of New Source Review rules, published on December 31, 2002, on emissions, human health, pollution control technology, and energy efficiency. That amendment provided that the National Academy will submit an interim report to Congress no later than March 3, 2004, approximately 1 year after passage. In September 2003, the EPA provided an oral authorization to the academy to begin work. Unfortunately, the agency has still not provided the contract papers necessary for the project to start. I do not know what the holdup might be. However, that study, if it ever gets funded by EPA, would not review the effects of the second set of NSR rules on routine equipment replacement which were published on October 27, 2003. It should and, since EPA has not yet funded the study and it has not started, there is still plenty of time to revise the mission statement and do the work. I am advised by academy staff that this expansion would entail minimal additional cost to EPA. As I have noted, my amendment simply extends the NAS study to cover the effects of the second set of rules looking at the same criteria and extends the interim report deadline by 10 months to January 1, 2005. I am pleased the managers have agreed to accept this amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, like every loyal Red Sox fan, I believe that next season my team will be victorious. I bring this same level of optimism to my efforts to reduce the amount of wasted resources and litter caused by discarded beverage containers. I rise today to speak again to the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, the bottle bill, convinced that this is our year. I have long been an advocate for increased recycling. Vermont passed its bottle bill in 1972 when I was state attorney general. In 1975, during my first session as a Representative in the U.S. House, I introduced a national bottle bill, closely resembling Vermont's very successful example. Last Congress, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I convened the first Congressional hearing in many years on recycling, in which the committee heard expert testimony on the merits of a national program to recycle beverage containers. The reason that I continue to push this issue is simple--it makes sense. Beverage container recycling is one of the simplest ways to see a dramatic improvement in our environment. As this chart shows, 120 billion--let me repeat, 120 billion with a ``b''--beverage containers were wasted by not being recycled in 2001. If we could raise the Nation's recycling rate to 80 percent, we would save the equivalent of 300 million barrels of oil over the next 10 years and eliminate 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. States that have enacted bottle bills also have benefited by reducing road side litter by up to 84 percent. These savings may sound unrealistic. But in Vermont alone, recycling efforts in 2001 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 94,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent. That's equal to approximately two-thirds of all industrial carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion in Vermont and 4.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. To me, those savings sound remarkable. Why a refundable deposit program? Thirty years of experience demonstrates that refundable deposit bottle bills are dramatically more effective than voluntary efforts. As this chart illustrates, the ten States that have implemented deposit laws recycle more containers than all of the other 40 States combined. While I applaud curbside and other voluntary recycling efforts, the 71 percent of Americans who live in non-bottle bill States account for only 28 percent of recycled beverage containers. My bill, the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, strikes a balance between the wishes of industry, the authority of individual States, and the needs of a healthy environment. Unlike traditional bottle bills, this legislation would fully harness market incentives by setting an 80 percent recovery performance standard and allowing industry the freedom to design the most efficient deposit-return program to reach the standard. States that already have bottle bills will retain their authority to continue their programs in their own individual ways as long as they meet the national performance standard. This past Saturday, November 15, 2003, was America Recycles Day in Vermont and across the country. Two years ago, to help commemorate the 2001 America Recycles Day, I participated in a public service announcement to raise awareness regarding the need to buy recycled goods. The importance of recycling deserves, however, more than a 30-second public service announcement and more than its own day on the calendar. For it to work, recycling must be a commitment of all of ours each and every day of the year. Vermont's commitment to recycling has provided some impressive statistics. For example, in 2001, 31 percent of Vermont's municipal waste was diverted from landfills. That year, 13,260 tons of containers were recycled through soft drink and beer distributors and materials recovery facilities. The benefit of these programs is, of course, that they help keep our Green Mountains green. I commend and thank Governor Jim Douglas for his many recent initiatives to encourage and improve the efficiency of recycling across Vermont. For example, under Governor Douglas' leadership, Vermont has implemented beverage container recycling programs at 20 State information centers. In the first phase, in less than 2 months, over 200 pounds of aluminum, glass, and plastic were recovered from 51,00 visitors passing through one such information center in Willison, VT. And today, the U.S. Senate's other Vermonter, Patrick Leahy, joins me and Senators Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, and John Kerry as original cosponsors as I introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003. I recommend that all take advantage of this wonderful system we have in Vermont and in other States. I ask everyone to take a close look and see if we wouldn't be much better off if the rest of the country follows suit. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the conference report on H.R. 6, the comprehensive energy legislation, was released over the weekend. As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have come to the floor today to share my deep concern that this bill will endanger our environment and unfairly benefit special interests. The final conference report contains provisions that significantly change environmental law and undermine long-standing environmental protections. It is my sincere hope that the conference will remove many of these provisions during their meeting today. The Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve, has jurisdiction over environmental matters, and we were not consulted in the development of any of these provisions. This bill drastically rewrites existing clean air law. It postpones ozone attainment standards across the country. This is a matter never considered in either House or Senate bill that has been inserted into the conference report. By inserting this language, the conference will expose the public to dangerous air pollution emissions for far more time than under existing law. Several Federal courts have already struck down regulatory proposals similar to the provisions in the conference report as violations of the Clean Air Act. The gasoline additive MTBE, which is known to contaminate groundwater, would have been phased out in 4 years in the Senate bill. This conference report extends the phaseout for a decade and includes provisions that would allow the President to decide to continue the MTBE use. This bill provides legal immunity to large petrochemical companies from ``defective product'' liability arising from the contamination of groundwater supplies by the gasoline additive MTBE. It also terminates a lawsuit filed by the State of New Hampshire by reaching back to provide immunity as of September 5, 2003. This language allows a contaminating product to be used, possibly indefinitely, and provides communities with no fiscal remedies to clean it up. As a further subsidy to the industry, the bill exempts all construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from coverage under the runoff requirements of the Clean Water Act. This means that contaminants, such as toxic chemicals, grease, and other pollutants from oil and gas drilling, will end up in our waterways. Conferees have also removed hydraulic fracturing, an underground oil and gas recovery technique, from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is a process in which water, sand, and toxic chemicals are injected under high pressure into oil- and gas-bearing rocks, potentially polluting drinking water supplies. This bill suspends these existing drinking water protections, even though courts have found that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated to protect the public health. Also, the conferees have included language to speed up energy exploration and development at the expense of environmental review and public participation on both Federal and non-Federal lands. The public will have less time to review and consider the impact of these projects. When these reviews occur, oil, gas and geothermal energy companies can be reimbursed through credits against future royalties payable to the taxpayer for the costs of undertaking environmental assessments. These provisions subsidize energy development on our public lands. The conferees have also included provisions that mandate specific timeframes and deadlines for agency decisions on Federal oil and gas leases. This would establish oil and gas development as the dominant use of our Federal public lands. Our other Federal lands are at risk of becoming electric transmission corridors with this bill as well. The Department of Energy can open new areas for transmission line construction, harming the wildlife, water quality, recreational and other values we have sought to protect for years. My colleagues should know that this is not an exhaustive list of the environmental provisions of concern in this bill. In almost every title, there are significant changes to long standing environmental law and policy. In addition, important issues which received majority support in the Senate, such as a Renewable Portfolio Standard for electricity, requirements to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and adoption of sensible climate change policy, have been dropped. While I support the establishment of a comprehensive energy policy for the United States, we should not use the final energy bill as a means to roll back important environmental protections. This bill will not promote energy self-sufficiency, will not promote it, and will cause environmental damage. It is my sincere hope that these unwise provisions will be removed, and I urge my colleagues to consider seriously the environmental effects of this legislation in making their final decisions regarding whether or not to support this measure when it come before the Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about several provisions found in the FAA reauthorization conference report. Before the Senate passed S. 824, the FAA reauthorization bill, we expressly prohibited additional privatization of air traffic controllers. We also eliminated a proposed cost-sharing requirement for local communities that participate in the essential air service program. This requirement would have placed an insurmountable burden on many remote communities struggling to maintain commercial air service. Our colleagues in the House responded similarly to these issues. When the Senate and House bills went to conference, neither Chamber's legislation permitted privatization of air traffic controllers, nor did either bill contain an essential air service cost-share requirement. Therefore, I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the final conference report allows both. I am also very concerned about the provisions in this bill affecting the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. While not actually an amendment to NEPA, these provisions are more likely to lead to extended conflict, litigation and confusion--far from a streamlined result. In addition, the Department of Transportation has neither the authority nor the expertise to determine the environmental impact of various alternatives to a project under environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Other Federal entities, such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and Wildlife Service who have specific statutory mandates, must evaluate alternatives under Federal law when their jurisdiction is invoked. For example, regulations governing wetlands permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act require the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate several factors such as ``fish and wildlife values,'' ``water quality,'' ``conservation,'' and ``aesthetics'' in determining whether a permit is in the public's interest. The Clean Water Act imposes specific substantive standards on the Corps' decision and prohibits the Corps from issuing a permit to fill a wetland if there is a less damaging practicable alternative. Under current law, the Corps has the authority to supplement NEPA documents with additional information in order to fulfill its legal responsibility. The legal obligations of these other agencies have not been repealed by the language in this bill, nor should they be. There is ample authority contained in the existing NEPA statute and regulations for coordination among Federal agencies in performing required environmental reviews. The confusing statutory directions contained in this bill are both unnecessary and counterproductive if the desired result is efficient project completion. Given its current content, I cannot support this conference report. Just last year, Congress determined that, for security reasons, airport passenger screeners should be Federal employees. Why would we treat air traffic controllers differently? They play an equally important role in ensuring the safety of our air travelers. Our air traffic control network safely guides more than 700 million passengers a year. In addition, the ATC network provides a crucial national security service by coordinating the national air space for military aircraft as well as for commercial aircraft. As we saw immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the ATC system must be prepared to respond quickly and efficiently in emergency situations. In order to best ensure the safety of air travel in this country, our air traffic control network must remain a Federal responsibility. This bill permits privatization of air traffic control towers around the country. I am also very concerned that the essential air service cost-share language found its way back into this legislation. The EAS program was created in 1978, when Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act, reflecting Congress's belief that deregulation should not result in the elimination of airport service in rural communities. In my home State of Vermont, the Rutland State Airport depends on this program to maintain commercial service in and out of the Rutland region. For many cash-strapped EAS communities, the local match required by the cost-share provision in this bill is insurmountable. Mandatory cost-shares will mean the end of commercial air service in many economically depressed rural areas. If we adopt this provision, we have essentially defeated the goal of the EAS program. Both the House and the Senate acted on these two provisions earlier this year. The FAA conference report reverses the positions that a majority of our Members agreed to on the House and Senate floors. Rather than endorse the flaws found in this legislation, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1618, Senator Rockefeller's short-term extension of the Federal Aviation Administration programs. This bill provides the additional time we need to work out a long-term reauthorization package that represents the positions of a majority of Members of both Houses of Congress. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of Bellows Free Academy in Fairfax, VT. Bellows Free Academy is one of the last schools in Vermont that serves student from kindergarten through 12th grade. As such, many families in Fairfax enjoy the advantage of having their children attend the facility from their first day of school through high school graduation. And it is a very nice facility. The original 1903 building, which burned down in January 1941, was replaced and dedicated in 1942. Additions in 1960, 1973, 1990, and 1999 have kept the school up to date with modern space, equipment and facilities. Located in the heart of one of Vermont's fastest growing towns, BFA is a venerable school whose playgrounds and athletic fields are framed by woods and meadows, with a new land acquisition providing access to the nearby Lamoille River. Several vantage points reveal majestic views of Mount Mansfield, Vermont's tallest mountain. In discussing BFA, a point of clarity is in order, as there are two schools in Vermont named Bellows Free Academy, and both are in Franklin County. Each school owes its founding to the same benefactor, but people in Fairfax are quick to point out that theirs is the original BFA, even if it is smaller, in terms of student enrollment, to its namesake in St. Albans. BFA, Fairfax, was established through the generous provisions of the 1876 will of Hiram Bellows, who was born in Fairfax in 1798. As a young person, Hiram Bellows lived at the farm of his birth and attended grammar school at a nearby schoolhouse. He advanced to the small graded school in town when good fortune brought a college graduate to Fairfax to teach for a short period of time. Hiram was unable to progress further in formal education, however, because his parents could not afford the academy fees to attend the high school equivalent of his day. Hiram Bellows was an industrious man and an able judge of character. For some time, he made his living operating a general store and `tinkering' in real estate. It is said that he liked to bargain, and invariably whittled on a piece of wood while studying the face of the man with whom a deal was being contemplated. He served as State senator from Franklin County; was a charter member of the Vermont and Canada Railroad Company; founding associate of the Parish of Christ Church, Episcopal; and first president of the First National Bank of St. Albans. In regard to his nature and character, a niece once recalled that he was ``a kind, delightful gentleman, whose house was always open.'' Upon his death, Hiram Bellows' will included provisions for the establishment of a free academy in Fairfax. Here follows several terms of his will: I give, and bequeath in trust to my native town of Fairfax, two hundred and fifty shares in the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, the par value, one hundred dollars each. The dividends thereon as far as practical, to be invested in said stock, until the same shall amount to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, for the purpose of establishing a free school in said town of Fairfax. Said school to be located upon the premises hereinafter mentioned and described. Said school to be known and called `the Bellows Free Academy of Fairfax, Vermont'. In which Academy the primary and higher branches of learning shall be taught. Said Academy shall be conducted in all respects in such a manner as to further the education of children and young men, so as to fit them for usefulness, and so as is practical, it is my wish that children of indigent parents receive and advantage of said school in preference to those who have ample means of support of their children . . . And so, in the same year that Orville and Wilbur Wright achieved human flight from a sand dune in Kitty Hawk, NC, Hiram Bellows' estate of railroad stock founded a free academy on a village lot in Fairfax, VT. Generations of Hiram Bellows family have attended and graduated from the school he so generously established. I am old his descendants attend BFA to this day. And with the generations of Bellows', so have been graduated generation after generation of other familiar Fairfax families. A school of course, does not exist and cannot thrive in and of itself. In this regard, Fairfax has a strong tradition of community support for its school, and that tradition is reflected in the quality of students, teachers, administrators, directors, and staff at BFA over the century of its existence. The list of those responsible for the continued growth and success of the academy goes on and on. There are specific individuals who, I am sure, are worthy of specific praise. But perhaps even more importantly, there are the countless people who contribute immeasurable hours in innumerable ways to endless projects. They are the backbone of the community; they comprise the sustaining force of the school. So the Bellows Free Academy of Fairfax owes its beginnings to a remarkable man named Hiram Bellows. It does its proud history to its administration, teachers, students, and above all, its community. Its future depends on sustaining all of the above. And while there are indeed numerous families who count generations of graduates from Bellows Free Academy, judging by its rate of growth, Fairfax also benefits greatly from contributions of newer residents, many drawn to this community, I suspect, precisely because of the strong reputation of its school system. So, it is with great pleasure that I offer my congratulations to all those, past and present, involved with the Bellows Free Academy of Fairfax, VT. Moreover, I am pleased to recognize the generosity and foresight of its founder, Hiram Bellows. Happy 100th birthday, BFA.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, like every loyal Red Sox fan, I believe that next season, my team will be victorious. I bring this same level of optimism to my efforts to reduce the amount of wasted resources and litter caused by discarded beverage containers. I rise today to introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, the Bottle Bill, convinced that this is our year. I have long been an advocate for increased recycling. Vermont passed its Bottle Bill in 1972 when I was State Attorney General. In 1975, during my first session as a Representative in the U.S. House, I introduced a national Bottle Bill, closely resembling Vermont's very successful example. Last Congress, as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I convened the first congressional hearing in many years on recycling, in which the Committee heard expert testimony on the merits of a national program to recycle beverage containers. The reason that I continue to push this issue is simple--it makes sense. Beverage container recycling is one of the simplest ways to see a dramatic improvement in our environment. One hundred and twenty billion--let me repeat, 120 billion with a ``B''--beverage containers were wasted by not being recycled in 2001. If we could raise the Nation's recycling rate to 80 percent, we would save the equivalent of 300 million barrels of oil over the next ten years and eliminate 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. States that have enacted bottle bills also have benefited by reducing road side litter by up to 84 percent. These savings may sound unrealistic. But, in Vermont alone, recycling efforts in 2001 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 94,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent. That's equal to approximately two-thirds of all industrial carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion in Vermont and 4.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. To me, those savings sound remarkable. Why a refundable deposit program? Thirty years of experience demonstrates that refundable deposit bottle bills are dramatically more effective than voluntary efforts. The ten States that have implemented deposit laws recycle more containers than all of the other 40 States combined. While I applaud curbside and other voluntary recycling efforts, the 71 percent of Americans who live in non-bottle bill States account for only 28 percent of recycled beverage containers. My bill, the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, strikes a balance between the wishes of industry, the authority of individual states, and the needs of a healthy environment. Unlike traditional bottle bills, this legislation would fully harness market incentives by setting an 80 percent recovery performance standard and allowing industry the freedom to design the most efficient deposit- return program to reach the standard. States that already have bottle bills will retain their authority to continue their programs in their own individual ways as long as they meet the national performance standard. This Saturday, November 15, 2003, is America Recycles Day in Vermont and across the country. Two years ago, to help commemorate the 2001 America Recycles Day, I participated in a public service announcement to raise awareness regarding the need to buy recycled goods. The importance of recycling deserves, however, more than a 30-second public service announcement and more than its own day on the calendar. For it to work, recycling must be a commitment of all of ours each and every day of the year. Vermont's commitment to recycling has provided some impressive statistics. For example, in 2001, 31 percent of Vermont's municipal waste was diverted from landfills. That year, 13,260 tons of containers were recycled through soft drink and beer distributors and materials recovery facilities. The benefit of these programs is, of course, that they help keep our Green Mountains green. I commend and thank Governor Jim Douglas for his many recent initiatives to encourage and improve the efficiency of recycling across Vermont. For example, under Governor Douglas' leadership, Vermont has implemented beverage container recycling programs at 20 State information centers. In the first phase, in less than two months, over 200 pounds of aluminum, glass, and plastic were recovered from 51,000 visitors passing through one such information center in Williston, VT. And today, the U.S. Senate's other Vermonter, Patrick Leahy, joins me and Senators Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, and John Kerry as original cosponsors as I introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Lautenberg- Mikulski amendment increasing funding for the enforcement activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I would like to voice my strong support for this amendment. Without effective enforcement, our environmental laws will never succeed in reducing pollution and improving environmental quality. Simply put, the best environmental laws in the world mean nothing without vigorous enforcement. Unfortunately, this administration does not share this sentiment. Just last week, the administration directed the EPA to abandon ongoing investigations of some 50 different facilities for violations of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review provisions. Apparently, gutting the rule itself was not enough. Pardons for big polluters--many of them large political contributors--seem to be the administration's preferred approach to environmental enforcement. Lack of enforcement is hardly confined to the Clean Air Act. Indeed, a recent report from the EPA inspector general reveals an Agency failing to keep up with its enforcement duties across a number of different programs. According to the report, a majority of special agents-in-charge of environmental crimes states that they will not open a new case if they lack the resources necessary to pursue the case. In addition, formal enforcement actions under several key Clean Water Act programs have declined dramatically over the last 3 years. Specifically, the number of formal enforcement actions brought under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System declined by 45 percent between 1999 and 2001. Clear Water Act enforcement actions against large concentrated animal feeding operations declined by more than 90 percent between 2000 and 2002. I ask my colleagues: What kind of message does this send to the Nation's polluters? What kind of message does it send to the American people? On one hand, we have an administration that is openly hostile to environmental enforcement. On the other hand, we have an EPA that is unable to initiate new environmental crimes cases and is dramatically scaling back on several major civil enforcement programs because the agency lacks adequate resources. I hope that Administrator Leavitt will work to remedy this situation, but I fear that much of the problem may ultimately lie with the White House. Mr. President, the additional appropriation contained in this amendment represents a modest increase in the Agency's enforcement budget. But it is crucial one given the Agency's inability to keep up with its obligations to enforce this country's environmental laws. This amendment also sends a signal to the EPA and to the administration that the Senate takes environmental enforcement seriously. At the end of the day, the answer is not, as the administration would have it, to abandon existing enforcement actions. Rather, the answer is to provide adequate resources and to demand more oversight to ensure that our environmental laws will not be empty words in the statute books.