Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President. I rise in support of H.R. 3087, a bill to extend the Nation's surface transportation program, TEA-21, for a five-month period. Absent enactment of H.R. 3087, the program will shut down on September 30, 2003. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. I regret the need for a short term extension to TEA-21. A short term extension brings uncertainty to our State transportation departments. This leads to postponed projects and job loss. But we have yet to find sufficient revenues to bring a full, 6-year reauthorization bill to the floor. I have worked for the last 2 years on reauthorization of the transportation program, first as chairman of the committee on Environment and Public Works, and now as ranking member. This work has been bipartisan. I thank and commend Chairman Inhofe and our subcommittee chairman and ranking member, Senators Bond and Reid for their approach to this task. We have made great progress. We concluded early on that the Nation's infrastructure needs far exceed current resources. We shared our findings with our Senate colleagues. They in turn gave overwhelming support to the Bond-Reid amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution, to increase spending on the transportation program by roughly 40 percent to $311 billion. This has guided our work. Our hearings revealed strong support for the existing TEA-21 program structure. In our work to date, we have retained the program structure largely intact. My goal is to maintain the current patterns in resources allocation among program categories, as well. On funding formulas, we have committed to benefitting all States as the program grows. And the program growth levels approved by our Senate budget resolution will enable such an outcome. I will continue to work with Chairman Inhofe to bring a full, 6-year bill to the Senate floor within the next 5 months.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to make some brief remarks about the extension of the Transportation Equity Act, often referred to as TEA-21. Chairman Inhofe and I, along with subcommittee Chairman Bond and ranking member Harry Reid, have been working together on drafting a comprehensive, bipartisan 6-year transportation reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, that reauthorization effort will not be completed before TEA-21 expires on September 30. Thus, as with the previous reauthorization of ISTEA by TEA-21, we will need to do a short extension of TEA-21. In the interest of time, and to avoid any concerns about potential disruptions, we have used major portions of the same short-extension language used for ISTEA in 1997 for this extension. It is important that I clarify some aspects of this short extension with the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe. The purpose of this short extension is to continue the Federal surface transportation programs and transportation investment patterns. For that reason, we have provided considerable short-term spending flexibility to the States. However, in a longer term extension, if any were needed, we should be consistent with Congressional goals set forth in TEA-21. Thus, I want to ensure that if there is a need for another extension we more closely adhere to the flexibility provisions set forth in TEA-21. This would require, for example, changes to the text used in this short-term extension regarding section 133(d). In a short-term extension there is little risk that investment patterns would be altered in a manner inconsistent with TEA-21 and thus the proposed language is acceptable for the short term. Senator Inhofe do you agree with my understanding that the bipartisan extension we have proposed works well in the short term but would require some modification to its flexibility provisions if it were to apply for a longer period of time? In addition, will you agree to work with me to make changes to the language if we have to do another extension to address the concerns I have raised?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to make some brief remarks about the extension of the Transportation Equity Act, often referred to as TEA-21. Chairman Inhofe and I, along with subcommittee Chairman Bond and ranking member Harry Reid, have been working together on drafting a comprehensive, bipartisan 6-year transportation reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, that reauthorization effort will not be completed before TEA-21 expires on September 30. Thus, as with the previous reauthorization of ISTEA by TEA-21, we will need to do a short extension of TEA-21. In the interest of time, and to avoid any concerns about potential disruptions, we have used major portions of the same short-extension language used for ISTEA in 1997 for this extension. It is important that I clarify some aspects of this short extension with the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe. The purpose of this short extension is to continue the Federal surface transportation programs and transportation investment patterns. For that reason, we have provided considerable short-term spending flexibility to the States. However, in a longer term extension, if any were needed, we should be consistent with Congressional goals set forth in TEA-21. Thus, I want to ensure that if there is a need for another extension we more closely adhere to the flexibility provisions set forth in TEA-21. This would require, for example, changes to the text used in this short-term extension regarding section 133(d). In a short-term extension there is little risk that investment patterns would be altered in a manner inconsistent with TEA-21 and thus the proposed language is acceptable for the short term. Senator Inhofe do you agree with my understanding that the bipartisan extension we have proposed works well in the short term but would require some modification to its flexibility provisions if it were to apply for a longer period of time? In addition, will you agree to work with me to make changes to the language if we have to do another extension to address the concerns I have raised?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have agreed not to offer my amendment which would have required the submission to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of a log of documents relating to New Source Review at the Department of Energy by a time certain. My agreement is based on a promise from the Department made to my staff today. The Department has committed that this log will be delivered to me and the committee within the next few days. I ask unanimous consent that a September 25, 2002, letter from the Department to me, as then chairman of the committee, be printed in the Record following my remarks. This letter promised delivery of the document log by October 24, 2002, yet the Department failed to provide that log.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation, and I look forward to working on this language in conference. high-level waste cleanup

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have some concerns with the language in section 104. These are, I believe, technical concerns. My understanding is that the Corps of Engineers, in order to more effectively manage their resources, is interested in having continuing contract authority for congressionally authorized water resource studies. I have no problem with that, but I am not sure that the language is correct in 104.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern regarding section 205 of H.R. 2754, the fiscal year 2004 energy and water appropriations legislation. The provision affects the protection of the Rio Grande silvery minnow. As ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee of jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act, I am concerned about the impact this provision will have on the future survival of this species. In New Mexico, Federal, State and environmental stakeholders were in the midst of negotiations that would yield long-term solutions to the water crisis in the Rio Grande. These negotiations began in response to a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that both San Juan-Charm water and native Rio Grande water could be taken by Federal officials to meet environmental conditions for the silvery minnow. The discussions were recently suspended due to the time pressures placed on the parties by the provision in this bill. The parties, convened by Governor Richardson, are seeking locally driven resolutions that would both fulfill the intent behind this provision and also address the conditions that precipitated the need for the court's opinion. These negotiations have moved very close to agreement on the sustainable and equitable management of water resources in the Middle Rio Grande. The negotiations were a great step toward collaboration and made progress under the Governor's leadership. That they have been called off, due largely to this provision, puts at risk a precedent for collaboration that could be a model for endangered species and river management throughout the West. I am concerned that section 205 would prevent the Bureau of Reclamation from releasing water from its reservoirs to maintain silvery minnow habitat and that without access to this water, it will be more difficult to acquire the water needed to meet the target flows in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion endorsed in this provision. Any action that takes water out of the Bureau's hands increases the pressure on remaining water supplies and on the silvery minnow. Negotiated water management reforms, not exemptions to the Endangered Species Act, will best meet the needs of all who are dependent on the Rio Grande. This rider also would seek to sanction a biological opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Endangered Species Act is a flexible tool that allows for biological opinions to adapt to changing circumstances and increased knowledge. If this biological opinion is endorsed by this provision, it is likely that it would not be reopened, even if the Service learns of more effective methods for protecting the silvery minnow. The Rio Grande silvery minnow occurs only in the middle Rio Grande. This species was historically one of the most abundant and widespread fishes in the Rio Grande basin, occurring from New Mexico, to the Gulf of Mexico. It was also found in the Pecos River, a major tributary of the Rio Grande, from Santa Rosa, NM, downstream to its confluence with the Rio Grande in south Texas. It is now completely extinct in the Pecos River and its numbers have severely declined within the Rio Grande. Currently, the species occupies only about five percent of its known historic range. The parties to the mediation, the Governor's office; environmental groups; the conservancy district; the Bureau of Reclamation; several Indian Pueblos; the State water engineer; and the city of Albuquerque should be able to continue their negotiations to find a mutually agreeable solution to this problem, without jeopardizing the underlying species protections provided by the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on Friday, September 19, 2003, Vermonters will gather in Proctor, VT, for a happy, yet solemn occasion. They will assemble on that day to reopen Proctor's Marble Arch Bridge and to dedicate a memorial to SGT Justin Garvey, United States Army, 101st Airborne Division. The joy will be in the celebration of the new bridge, a centerpiece of Proctor's infrastructure. It is the town's only bridge to span Vermont's longest river, the Otter Creek. Originally constructed in 1915, the new bridge will reestablish an historic gateway between the east and west of Justin's home community. Proctor's Marble Arch Bridge, adorned with Highland Marble quarried from beneath Vermont's grand mountains, is an elegant example of artistry, craftsmanship and heritage, values that we Vermonters cherish and respect. SGT Justin Garvey, Proctor High School Class of 1998, exemplified these values as well. Justin was, by all accounts, an outstanding young man. He was known as a strong competitor, a motivated student, and an avid outdoorsman. His friends knew him as being good hearted and good humored. Justin was a loyal brother, a dedicated son and a loving husband. Justin Garvey loved and is loved by his family and community. He crossed the Marble Arch Bridge innumerable times. When he last crossed this bridge, he was on a journey that would take him to serve in the United States Army 101st Airborne Division, one of America's most elite defense forces. Not every soldier has the ``stuff'' to make the 101st Airborne. But it was no surprise to those who knew him that Justin Garvey studied and trained and worked to become a top-notch soldier. A fellow soldier wrote that ``He was a man who had no enemies . . . he is everything I want to be as a man. Everyone who ever met Justin was better for it. It was an honor to have served with him up to the end, that night. He taught me what a true hero is.'' From before its inception and throughout its history, America has depended upon the willingness of men like Justin Garvey to put themselves in harm's way for the sake of country and countrymen. Indeed, this Nation has survived only because of such men and such women. When Justin Garvey last crossed Proctor's historic Marble Arch Bridge, he was already a hero to his family and friends in this community. Today, all of Vermont and all of America recognize Justin Garvey as an American hero. Indeed, the world is in his debt. It is fitting and proper that we should dedicate a memorial to SGT Justin Garvey, Proctor native, American hero. May God Bless Justin and his family.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Dodd, Hagel, and others, in offering the amendment today that will provide an additional $1.2 billion in funding for special education. This will bring the total to $2.2 billion and put us on the path to fully fund special education within 8 years. Unfortunately, I think this has become an annual event. Every year we try again to make the Federal Government fulfill its promise of nearly 30 years ago. Every year we have tried and every year we have failed. This battle started in 1975 when Congress passed the special education bill. As a freshman Congressman, I had the pleasure of working on that bill with my colleague, then-Congressmen Harkin and Dodd. We recognized that special education would be costly, and we pledged to help States by covering 40 percent of these costs. But time and time again, the Federal Government has failed to keep its word. Instead of providing 40 percent, as we promised, we are currently providing only 18 percent. The bill before us proposes to increase spending by about $1 billion, and many of my colleagues will speak to how significant an increase this is. I wish to recognize the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts on increasing special education funding, but I am afraid it is just not enough to meet the needs of our schools. We could increase special education spending by $1 billion each year, but at this rate we could never reach the level of funding that was promised. Congress has failed time and again to keep its word on special education, and I am both embarrassed and troubled by this. I am embarrassed because we claim to be committed to educating our children, but we do not provide the support to our local schools to do so. This pattern of chronic underfunding hurts all the children. When school boards develop their budgets, they have a court-ordered constitutional responsibility to ensure that special education needs are addressed. Too often, they are forced to raise local property taxes or to cut services to all children. Failure to fully fund our share of special education forces our school boards to make impossible choices and divides our communities. We cannot continue to pretend we are doing our part here in Washington. We cannot continue to call for higher standards and greater achievement while not living up to our end of the bargain. We cannot continue to pit our students against each other in classrooms and school board meetings across the country. And we cannot continue to leave our States, our towns, and our local taxpayers to foot the bill because the Federal Government has failed to keep its promise. I am troubled because in my State of Vermont, a promise is not made casually or taken lightly. In developing this legislation which has helped so many, I gave my word that this would be a shared responsibility and that the Federal Government would pay its fair share. We have not, and this has gone on for too long. We have heard over and over from State legislatures and school boards around the country that full funding of special education is a top priority, a constitutional requirement. In my small State of Vermont, we are talking about the difference between $21 million, the amount of the Federal special education funds my State will receive this year, and $44 million, which is what Vermont would have received if we had just kept our promise. Right now, my State is struggling, like so many others, to cut budgets because of the economic downturn. Education dollars will not be spared, and that additional $23 million would have gone a long way this year toward easing the pain of the State's budget crunch. We are here today to ask the Federal Government to keep its promise. While we are almost 30 years overdue, there is no better time than now to do it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The Senate has repeatedly passed symbolic votes to fully fund IDEA, but these votes have been nothing more than symbolic. It is time to move beyond the symbolism. Please join me in passing this bipartisan legislation. Please allow us to be able to look into the eyes of the children and the citizens of our States and tell them we have kept our promise. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to 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 significant and timely health care concerns. As Medicaid director, which is Vermont's second largest insurance program, Paul has ensured service for 130,000 people and 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. 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-'80s 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-'80s 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 Vermont and its citizens serves as a testament to us all. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Crimmins, a fellow on my staff, be granted floor privileges during our consideration of the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as Senators, we are accustomed to the glare of the public spotlight which sometimes gives us more credit than we deserve. There are those, however, who work tirelessly for those in their community without such recognition. I wish to recognize one of those persons who works behind the scenes to make our country a better place to live. Marjorie Brooks, of Glover, was killed on Monday, August 25, 2003 while responding to a person in need. Brooks was riding in an emergency vehicle that rolled over enroute to assist at the scene of a vehicle accident. Marjorie Brooks was captain and president of the Barton Emergency Medical Services and had served on the squad for more than 25 years. She was planning to retire in September. ``Marge and her family are really a part of the history of emergency medical services in Barton, the Northeast Kingdom, and Vermont as a whole,'' said Dan Manz, chief of Emergency Medical Services for the State Department of Health. ``Marge has embodied the best of community- based emergency medical care. She touched thousands of lives as an EMT.'' I couldn't have said it better myself. The State of Vermont, including all those she served, has suffered a great loss in her death. I hope her family, including her son, Phil Brooks, who is the Secretary-Treasurer of the Barton EMS, finds the strength they need in coping with this tragic loss. Marjorie was a true public servant, and Vermont mourns her loss.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 209 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I intend to use an extensive length of time on the Chile-Singapore free-trade agreements. I see my good friend from Iowa. If he would desire to precede me, I would be happy to yield to him.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the implementing legislation for the Chile-Singapore free-trade agreements. I do so not because I oppose these trade agreements but because I have serious concerns about the effect of these agreements on congressional authority over immigration and the negative effects it will have on the needs of our unemployed and underemployed citizens. I know the importance of trade on our country and my State. In fact, trade with Canada and the rest of the world is an important part of Vermont's economy, which has led me to be a strong advocate of free- trade agreements in the past. During my time in Congress, I have worked to promote free trade with other countries, both near and far. For example, I voted for the North American Free-Trade Agreement. I did so not because I believed it was crucial that we begin to integrate the economies of North America. I was concerned about the disparities in the economic opportunities available to Mexicans and Americans. I thought that only by giving our southern neighbors access to the engine of the American economy could we address important issues such as poverty, immigration, and exploitative labor practices. I am aware, though, of the downside of international trade. When factories are closed or jobs move offshore because of more liberal trade policies, constituents have taken me to task because of my support for free trade. I do not blame them. Our trade policy must include strategies to help those adversely affected by the trade. I have long supported a vigorous trade adjustment assistance program. In addition, I believe it is important that trade agreements include strong environmental and labor provisions. Expanded trade should not lead to an ``environmental race to the bottom'' resulting in relaxation of environmental or labor standards that give our trading partners a competitive advantage over US businesses subject to more rigorous regulation. Because of its provisions guarding against relaxation of environmental controls and labor standards, I supported the Jordan Free Trade agreement during the last Congress. I have also voted in favor of fast track procedures. I appreciate that foreign trade negotiators will never put their best offers on the table if they have to worry that Congress will endlessly amend a negotiated trade agreement. But when I supported fast track procedures, I expected them to be limited to areas related to trade. In giving up our rights to debate and amend trade legislation, I expected and intended that those concessions would relate to issues that are specifically trade-related. However, the free trade agreements we face today violate this belief. My opposition to these agreements is not based on what I consider to be the crux of free trade agreements, the reduction of tariffs, it is based on something more. My stance today is based on my concern with the erosion of Congress' constitutional power, and the treatment of our nation's un- and under-employed. As I mentioned earlier, I supported the imposition of fast-track procedures for trade agreements when it passed Congress in 2002. However, what I see in front of us today, and the rumor that these agreements are to be the template for future agreements, makes me reconsider this support. The reason for this change lies squarely in the provisions of this free trade agreement that affect our immigration laws. These agreements create new categories of visas with different standards than currently exist in our immigration law, a law that has been considered and passed by Congress. I have looked in my copy of the Constitution and it clearly states in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 that Congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Congress, not the United States Trade Representative, has this authority. What we have in front of us today is the executive branch telling Congress what the nation's immigration policy should be, and I for one could not let this go unchallenged. In addition, this policy that is being forced upon Congress is not in any way uniform. These bills create new categories of visas, modify the standards and requirements of existing limits, and do so for people from only two countries. Is this any way to make immigration policy? Rhetorically, I will answer that it is, if you work in an executive branch that is interested in usurping Congressional power for yourselves, and can do so by replicating these provisions in future free trade agreements. Finally, and what I consider to be the greatest insult to Congressional power over immigration, Congress has very limited ability to change these provisions in the future. Congress could decide, with the full support of the administration at that time, that the need for temporary H-1B visas no longer exists. However, Congress could not modify or remove the provisions contained in these free trade agreements without the assent of Chile and Singapore. We need to wake up in Congress to what enactment of these provisions means. Ultimately, if we keep passing this type of legislation there will be no immigration law for Congress to oversee, it will all be negotiated by the United States Trade Representative with other countries. We need to make a stand and let the administration know that this type of negotiating will not be accepted. While it is commendable to pass, and I fully support, a Sense of the Senate resolution stating that future trade agreements should not contain similar type provisions, we need to change the fast track authority to ensure that power-hungry administrations can no longer put the Congress in this quandary. I pledge to work today with all interested members to ensure that the constitutional right and power of the Congress over immigration law is protected. I would like to take this opportunity to more fully inform my colleagues on how these free trade agreements differ from current law and what they will be enshrining permanently in our immigration law if the Senate passes these bills. The Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements create an entire new category of visas for professional workers separate from the existing H-1B program. This legislation would allow 6,800 professional workers into the United States under this new visa each year with 5,400 coming from Singapore and 1,400 from Chile. Yet, under the current H-1B program 4,000 workers from these two countries are already coming into the United States each year. In addition, as we are not currently hitting the cap of the current H-1B program, why do we need to create a new type of visa for another 2,800 workers? I believe the differences between the current H-1B program and the new type of visa will answer that question. First of all, the proposed Chile and Singapore agreements do not require H-1B dependent employers to make attestations that they are: No. 1, seeking to recruit U.S. workers; and No. 2, that they are not displacing U.S. workers. These two provisions in current law help ensure that employers do not negatively impact the U.S. labor market, and yet they are completely missing from the Chile and Singapore implementing legislation. They are missing. This omission will enable employers of foreign workers to operate with less oversight from the Department of Labor. The legislation goes so far as to deny the department the right to self-initiate investigations based on information of abuse or fraud in the Chile and Singapore visa programs. This will allow employer abuse to go unchecked. Secondly, the Chile and Singapore legislation does not explicitly forbid employers from demanding that their employees reimburse them for the $1,000 H-1B visa application fee. Beyond this, if Chile or Singapore decides to challenge the fee the agreements stipulate that a panel of international trade lawyers and not the administration or Congress makes the decision on what fees are allowed. Another crucial difference between the impending legislation and current law is that the Chile and Singapore agreements do not limit the number of times that an individual is able to renew his or her visa, enabling the non-immigrant to remain in the United States on a permanent rather than temporary basis. This stands in sharp contrast to the current H-1B program that puts a 6-year limit on non-immigrant visas. Consequently, an employee with one of the new visas could legally remain in the United States indefinitely. Finally, the agreements define the term ``specialty occupation'' differently than current H-1B law. The new visas will only require that the nonimmigrant have knowledge that is ``specialized'' as opposed to the ``highly specialized'' knowledge demanded by the current H-1B law. This could be a substantial lessening of the requirements professional workers currently have to meet to be able to escape our immigration law. What needs to be remembered concerning the substantial differences between this new visa category and the current H-1B program is that these provisions can not be changed by Congress. That may sound unusual. I think it is, so hopefully it will not ever be allowed. But, anyway, that is the way it is stated. These provisions to our immigration policy are in effect a permanent change to our immigration law that was negotiated by the United States Trade Representative and not considered in the normal process by Congress. My concern with these immigration provisions extends beyond its impact on Congress' constitutional authority, to its affect on our Nation's unemployed and underemployed. The United States has a serious problem right now with our economy. The current unemployment rate is at a 9-year high of 6.4 percent. Mr. President, 15.3 million people are unemployed, underemployed in part- time jobs, or have given up looking for work. In June, the United States lost 56,000 manufacturing jobs, bringing the total to 2.4 million manufacturing jobs that have disappeared since January 2001. Finally, the Nation's economy has shed 3.1 million private sector jobs since President George Bush took office. That is 3.1 million private- sector jobs lost since President Bush took office. The preceding statistics lay out a serious problem, but are we considering legislation to address these problems today? No, to the contrary, we are considering these free trade agreements that will exacerbate an already terrible crisis. We should be expanding the Federal financial commitment to education and job training initiatives, not expanding the number of foreign workers allowed in this country. This is where our answer lies. Since this Nation was founded in the late 1770s, we have struggled with the roles the various parts of our Government should play in our education delivery system. In the late 1940s, with the creation of the GI Bill, the percentage of the entire federal budget dedicated to education was 10.7 percent. Some 50-plus years later, that amount has dwindled to slightly less than 3 percent, which includes elementary, secondary, and higher education. The first significant financial influence by the Federal Government into elementary and secondary education occurred in 1965. Under the leadership of President Johnson, the original Elementary and Secondary Act came into existence. The original purpose was to distribute money to compensate for inequality of educational opportunity and to stimulate plans for school integration. Throughout the last 38 years, that purpose has continued to be the foundation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. However, sufficient funding has never been provided and the purpose has yet to be fulfilled. Since its inception in 1965, Title 1--the heart of the ESEA law has served less than 50 percent of the children who should be served under the program. Horace Mann, who is often credited with developing the American public school system said--and I am paraphrasing--that every human being that comes into the world has the right to an education. Horace Mann made that statement in the 19th century. Two centuries later, we seem to still be baffled as to how we provide a quality education to all who seek it. I don't believe the answer is that complicated. First and foremost, the Federal Government must increase its role in funding. It must reach back into history and return to dedicating 10 percent of the entire Federal budget to education. Right now, in this fiscal year, the Federal Government is providing $50 billion in discretionary funding for education. This compares to almost $400 billion for defense programs. Providing sufficient funding for defense is very important. However, it is just as important to provide sufficient funding and leadership to have the world's greatest education system. And we do not. Some may ask, where can we find the money for education? We can find the money when we all finally understand that it will be a severe detriment to the survival of this Nation if we do not. By vastly improving the Federal Government's monetary responsibility to education, we would go a long way to provide the resources needed to: first, serve every student who needs title I assistance; next, cover many of the mandates included in the No Child Left Behind Act-- the President's new law--next, provide for quality early childhood education; also, provide additional funding for Pell Grants and other student financial aid programs to improve access to postsecondary education; in addition provide quality professional development for all school personnel, with a special emphasis on math and science; and provide the full Federal share for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. When I first arrived in Congress in 1975, one of the first bills I worked on was the law that created special education, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that children with disabilities receive the special education and related services they need and are constitutionally entitled to receive. We recognized that children with disabilities often require specialized services and that educating children with disabilities could be twice as costly as educating children without disabilities. Therefore, we authorized the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of each State's excess cost of educating children with disabilities. Unfortunately, we have failed to actually provide the States with that 40 percent we promised. We are currently only providing slightly over 17 percent of the 40 percent we promised 28 years ago. That promise is far from being fulfilled. Our education system is also stressed at the postsecondary level. We have a higher education system that is the envy of the world. However, many in this country are unable to pursue postsecondary education opportunities, not only because of not being prepared academically, but also because of the astronomical financial burden. One-third of all seniors graduating from higher education institutions graduate with more than $20,000 in Federal loan debt. The financial strain is having a direct impact on our job market. Almost every community is facing a teacher shortage. How many graduates leaving college with at least a $20,000 debt are willing to sign up for a teaching job that pays on average a beginning salary of about $25,000 to $35,000? The cost of higher education is a particular problem for the high- tech industries and the health care industries. A number of jobs in these two areas require postgraduate work. Many do not go on to graduate programs because they can't finance the first part of it. This has been a factor in the dramatic increase over the last decade of the number of H-1B visas that have been issued, which I talked about earlier. Our country is lacking the skilled workforce necessary to address many of our needs. One initiative designed to address our job training needs is the Workforce Investment Act, which provides job-training activities for adults and youth. Unfortunately, Federal funding for job training programs have dropped $1.63 billion since 1985. These funds have dropped at the time when they have been needed the most and we are cutting. Mr. President, these are the initiatives that we should be focusing on to ensure that our citizens are prepared for and qualified for these jobs, not legislation that is going to fill these jobs with foreign workers. The Senate needs to take a stand today. We need to make this stand not only for the protection of Congressional authority, but also for the protection of our unemployed and underemployed citizens. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my intention to have the resolution introduced, that is correct.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise again today to reiterate my concerns with the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. Let me remind my colleagues that my concern with these agreements is not with the trade provisions that they contain, but with the changes to our immigration laws. A vote in favor of these agreements is a vote against our un- and under-employed professional workers. A vote in favor of these agreements is a vote against congressional constitutional authority over immigration. Let me repeat for my colleagues the numerous problems with the immigration provisions in these agreements: Creation of entirely new categories of nonimmigrant visas for free trade professionals that do not mirror the requirements of our current H1-B program; No requirement that H1-B dependent employers make attestations that they are seeking to recruit U.S. workers, and that they are not displacing U.S. workers; No limit to the number of times that an individual is able to renew his or her visa, enabling the non-immigrant to remain in the United States on a permanent rather than temporary basis; Only requires that the non-immigrant have knowledge that is ``specialized'' as opposed to the ``highly specialized'' knowledge demanded by the current H-1B law; Requires, without a numerical limit, the entry of business people under categories that parallel three other current visa categories; Requires the entry of their spouses and children so that they can join the foreign workers in the United States making the program even less of a temporary visa program; Requires the entry of foreign workers on L-1 visas regardless of whether they are nationals of Singapore or Chile so long as the sponsoring corporation has an office in those countries; Requires that the United States submit disputes about whether it should grant certain individuals entry to an international tribunal, not leaving that decision to the Department of Homeland Security. Finally, and in my mind, most importantly, for all my colleagues, these changes to our immigration law are effectively beyond the reach of Congress to oversee or alter. The Senate should be focusing today on legislation that will improve our education and job training services, not legislation that will increase the number of foreign workers in this country. We need to make a stand today for our professional workers and vote against these agreements.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce today, along with my colleagues Senator Smith of Oregon and Senator Conrad of North Dakota, the Pathways to Independence Act of 2003. Let me begin by describing why this legislation is necessary. Currently, States have to meet a certain level of work participation in order to avoid penalties against their welfare funding. This level of work participation can be lowered through the ``caseload reduction credit.'' This means that States receive credit for moving people off of their welfare caseload. The caseload reduction credit has proven to be very successful since welfare reform was enacted in 1996. In fact, most States have received so much credit for moving people off of their caseloads, that their effective work participation rate is 0 percent. While this approach has been widely regarded as very successful, it has one major flaw. States are rewarded only for removing people from welfare, there is no consideration given to where those people end up. States get the same credit for training someone to be a nurse, electrician, or carpenter as they do for sending that person to live on the streets. This perverse incentive has been particularly difficult for the many welfare recipients who suffer from a disability or struggle with a substance abuse problem. In many States it is easier to write these people off than to give them the support necessary to become truly independent. In Vermont, approximately 15 percent of the welfare caseload is diagnosed with a disability and receives services through the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. However, that treatment is not included in the ``core activities'' allowed under welfare reform. So the State receives no credit for moving these individuals to independence. This is wrong. If we truly want welfare to be an initiative that helps people to become independent and self-sufficient, then we must be willing to take the steps necessary to get them there. This legislation would give States the tools necessary to assist them in that effort. Here is how it would work. The bill will allow States to count people with disabilities or substance abuse problems as working, provided that they are meeting certain criteria. First, a State can count someone as working for three months if they are involved in a treatment program. At the end of this three month period, the State can re-evaluate the status of the individual and decide to continue treatment for another 3 months. Now, the individual must be engaged in work or work-preparation activities in addition to their continuing treatment program. At the end of 6 months, the State can continue treatment with the individual as long as the individual is meeting half of the regular work requirement and following their treatment program for the remaining hours. This is a common sense proposal. It is consistent with what we know about providing effective support programs to people with disabilities and effective treatment programs for people struggling with substance abuse. Allowing States to count these people in the ``working'' category provides the States with the necessary incentives to engage their welfare recipients in meaningful interventions. It will allow the States to truly place people with disabilities and substance abuse problems on a pathway to independence. In addition, this bill includes a provision first put forward by Senator Conrad that will allow States to exempt people who need to care for a child or family member with a disability. This is a proposal that was part of last year's Senate Finance Committee Work, Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids (WORK) bill, and I applaud Senator Conrad for his consistent support of that proposal. It is unclear when a full reauthorization of welfare will occur. It is clear however, that The Pathways to Independence Act of 2003 should be a part of any welfare reform package. I would like to thank the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities for their help in developing this legislation and their strong letter in support. I especially want to thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, and my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad and their staff for all of the hard work that has gone into producing this proposal.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce today, along with my colleagues Senator Smith of Oregon and Senator Conrad of North Dakota, the Pathways to Independence Act of 2003. Let me begin by describing why this legislation is necessary. Currently, States have to meet a certain level of work participation in order to avoid penalties against their welfare funding. This level of work participation can be lowered through the ``caseload reduction credit.'' This means that States receive credit for moving people off of their welfare caseload. The caseload reduction credit has proven to be very successful since welfare reform was enacted in 1996. In fact, most States have received so much credit for moving people off of their caseloads, that their effective work participation rate is 0 percent. While this approach has been widely regarded as very successful, it has one major flaw. States are rewarded only for removing people from welfare, there is no consideration given to where those people end up. States get the same credit for training someone to be a nurse, electrician, or carpenter as they do for sending that person to live on the streets. This perverse incentive has been particularly difficult for the many welfare recipients who suffer from a disability or struggle with a substance abuse problem. In many States it is easier to write these people off than to give them the support necessary to become truly independent. In Vermont, approximately 15 percent of the welfare caseload is diagnosed with a disability and receives services through the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. However, that treatment is not included in the ``core activities'' allowed under welfare reform. So the State receives no credit for moving these individuals to independence. This is wrong. If we truly want welfare to be an initiative that helps people to become independent and self-sufficient, then we must be willing to take the steps necessary to get them there. This legislation would give States the tools necessary to assist them in that effort. Here is how it would work. The bill will allow States to count people with disabilities or substance abuse problems as working, provided that they are meeting certain criteria. First, a State can count someone as working for three months if they are involved in a treatment program. At the end of this three month period, the State can re-evaluate the status of the individual and decide to continue treatment for another 3 months. Now, the individual must be engaged in work or work-preparation activities in addition to their continuing treatment program. At the end of 6 months, the State can continue treatment with the individual as long as the individual is meeting half of the regular work requirement and following their treatment program for the remaining hours. This is a common sense proposal. It is consistent with what we know about providing effective support programs to people with disabilities and effective treatment programs for people struggling with substance abuse. Allowing States to count these people in the ``working'' category provides the States with the necessary incentives to engage their welfare recipients in meaningful interventions. It will allow the States to truly place people with disabilities and substance abuse problems on a pathway to independence. In addition, this bill includes a provision first put forward by Senator Conrad that will allow States to exempt people who need to care for a child or family member with a disability. This is a proposal that was part of last year's Senate Finance Committee Work, Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids (WORK) bill, and I applaud Senator Conrad for his consistent support of that proposal. It is unclear when a full reauthorization of welfare will occur. It is clear however, that The Pathways to Independence Act of 2003 should be a part of any welfare reform package. I would like to thank the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities for their help in developing this legislation and their strong letter in support. I especially want to thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, and my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad and their staff for all of the hard work that has gone into producing this proposal.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution honoring Hiram Powers, a 19th Century American sculptor. He was born in Woodstock, VT in 1805 and chose a career in sculpting that bolstered the image of the United States in the world of art. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this resolution. I realize many people have never head of Hiram Powers, but we have all seen his work. Just outside the Senate Chamber's doors, stands an 8-foot-tall marble statute of Benjamin Franklin. Hiram Powers made the statue in 1862. On the House side, stands a similar statue of Thomas Jefferson. Hiram Powers also made that statue. In the Old Supreme Court Chamber, sits the bust of one of the Supreme Court's greatest Chief Justices, John Marshall, yes, Hiram Powers made that one too. In fact, in 1836, when Congress passed a resolution calling for the creation of a marble bust for John Marshall, Congress wanted it to be prepared by ``an artist of merit and reputation.'' Congress decided that Hiram Powers was that artist. His work is not limited to the U.S. Capitol. He also created a bust of Andrew Jackson for the White House. This work is widely considered one of the noblest examples of portraiture ever created by an American sculptor. Perhaps his most well known work is not of a famous historical figure, but a symbol representing the most tragic episode in our country's history. In the years prior to the Civil War, Hiram Powers was an outspoken abolitionist, and in 1844 he created his first rendition of the ``Greek Slave,'' a neoclassical statue of a young woman wearing contemporary American manacles. This work can be seen in the Corcoran Gallery of Art. Congress paid Hiram Powers a commission for the works he created over 160 years ago. I believe it is now time for Congress to thank Hiram Powers, an artist of merit and reputation, for his work that continues to inspire us to this day, and for generations to come. Mr. President, I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this resolution that I send to the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will spend a few minutes expressing my concerns about a serious public health crisis that this country faces due to mercury pollution. Perhaps some of you have heard of the small fishing community of Minamata Bay in Japan. If you know this village, you know also that it was nearly devastated by mercury pollution. Over 70 years ago, a chemical plant began dumping mercury waste into that bay. For the next 30 years, local citizens who depended heavily on the bay for commerce and daily sustenance saw strange and debilitating health problems emerge. At first, those eating fish out of the bay began experiencing headaches, numbness, tremors, blurred vision, hearing loss, speech problems, spasms, and loss of consciousness. As fish consumption continued, more people became sick. Plus, pets started becoming violent and birds fell from the sky. Naturally, the public's panic grew. Then, a generation of children was born with shriveled limbs and severe physical deformities. The woman in this photograph is one of the survivors of what was called Minamata Disease. In all, over nine hundred people died and thousands more were crippled by the poisoning. The Japanese government, which discovered the cause of these illnesses as early as 1956, hid the truth from the ailing public and refused to halt the industrial pollution. The dumping eventually stopped in 1968. In other words, knowing this mercury pollution was deadly, the Japanese government allowed it to continue for another 12 years. Surely such abandonment of the public's well-being would not happen today in our great country. Surely our government would never delay protections from mercury pollution for a decade, while allowing industry to neglect its responsibilities. Sadly, I am afraid this is exactly what is happening in our country today--over half a century after the lessons of Minamata Bay. Fortunately, we are not faced with the same concentration of mercury pollution as that Japanese fishing village so many years ago, where an estimated 27 tons of mercury compounds were dumped into the Bay. Although U.S. power plants emit almost twice that amount into the air each year, it is dispersed broadly, resulting in lower concentrations in any one place. Some estimates show that almost 100 additional tons of this poison are emitted from other U.S. sources every year, bringing our air emissions total to almost 150 tons of mercury pollution annually. Furthermore, the principal route of human and wildlife exposure, namely, the consumption of poisoned fish, is the same in this country as it was in Minamata. It is occurring at often dangerous levels. Power plants are the largest unregulated source of mercury in the country, emitting almost 50 tons each year into our air. To put this amount into perspective, just one-seventieth of a teaspoon of annual mercury deposition can make fish in a 25 acre lake unsafe to eat. Utilities, amazingly, are releasing enough mercury into our air every year to contaminate 45 million lakes. Medical and solid waste incinerators are also major mercury polluters, but they are regulated under the Clean Air Act. Because of these regulations, incinerators have reduced emissions by 95 percent in the last decade. Impressive. The act also requires any residual risk posed by these sources to be reduced with further emissions cuts. When utilities burn coal, they release much of its mercury content into the air. This mercury falls with the rain into lakes, streams, and the ocean. It then transforms into a toxic compound called methyl mercury that does not break down easily, as this chart shows. This toxic mercury is eaten by fish, and increases in concentration up the fish food chain as smaller fish are consumed by larger fish. Eventually, humans and other animals eat the fish, and the mercury too. Clearly, our consumption of larger fish can expose us to greater concentrations of mercury contamination than eating smaller fish. This cycle is depicted in the chart beside me. The EPA estimates that although some atmospheric deposition of mercury in the United States is due to non-U.S. sources, 60 percent of what falls to Earth in our country is due to our own emissions. We should take responsibility for the fact that most of our mercury deposition comes from our own country. And, for those sources abroad that affect our Nation's environment, I urge the administration to negotiate a treaty quickly to control non-U.S. emissions. Mercury contamination of fish in the United States has very harmful impacts on our wildlife and our health. In waterfowl such ass loons, it interferes with vision and muscle coordination. It is toxic to their developing embryos and hinders reproduction. As a result, loon populations are declining, especially in the Adirondacks. Other fish-eating wildlife like mink and otters are at risk as well. In humans, once mercury is ingested it has the ability to enter our blood stream and cross the blood-brain barrier. Pregnant and nursing women then can pass the mercury on to developing fetuses and infants, who are at greatest risk for serious health problems. The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that prenatal mercury exposure is linked to the following: impaired memory and concentration; the inability to process and recall information; impaired visual and motor function; attention and language deficits; cerebral palsy; mental retardation; and other developmental effects. These health effects are similar to those caused by lead poisoning. Indeed, mercury is very likely the next lead. We were able to find an effective solution to the lead problem relatively quickly. However, we can and should address mercury pollution even more swiftly and effectively. We have advanced technology that makes it possible and feasible now. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 1 in 12 women of childbearing age has mercury levels above EPA's safe health threshold, due primarily to consumption of poisoned fish. This totals almost 5 million women, and results in almost 300,000 newborns with increased risk of nervous system damage from exposure in the womb. EPA recommends that pregnant women, or women who may become pregnant, eat only one serving of fish each week, and adhere to any State advisories that may call for further prohibitions. What many Americans may not realize is that all other healthy children and adults are also at risk if they consume a large amount of fish. This group includes recreational anglers like this boy here, some Native American tribes, Asian Americans, and the poor. A United Nations Environment Programme report has linked mercury exposure to heart, thyroid, and digestive problems in adults. This is truly a widespread health crisis. Yet, despite the fact that these at-risk groups can face mercury exposures two to five times higher than the general population, they are often the least informed about the dangers of mercury consumption. Today we rely on a hodge podge of State advisories to protect citizens from eating too much poisoned fish. Currently, 43 States have advisories in effect. These advisories cover over 12 million acres of lakes, 450,000 miles of river, 15,000 miles of coast, and more. Multi-state water bodies are often covered by inconsistent warnings, leading to confusion for anglers and consumers alike. Many States do not even monitor their own rivers and lakes. Some State advisories are based on EPA's safety threshold, which has been deemed scientifically justifiable by the National Academy of Sciences. However, others are based on the EPA's weaker standard. EPA itself does not issue advisories, but it offers guidance to States. The FDA is responsible for warning consumers about mercury contamination of commercially available fish. However, FDA advisories are rarely posted where fish consumers can see them, at the grocery stores or fish markets. In fact, only this year did one State, California, require that stores begin posting warnings like this one. This advisory says: Warning--Pregnant and nursing women, women who may become pregnant, and young children should not eat the following fish: swordfish, shark, king mackerel, and tilefish. They should also limit their consumption of other fish, including fresh or frozen tuna. Shamefully, the FDA does not make public the information it has collected from fish safety testing. Plus, in 1998, it ceased its mercury monitoring program for shark, swordfish, and tuna, and now does only limited testing. Does this seem like an adequate way to inform the public about the risks of fish consumption? The FDA must act now to better protect Americans. The good news is that the Clean Air Act is designed to protect us from some sources of mercury pollution. The bad news is that this administration seems determined to reverse or weaken such protections. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, which I was proud to work on with the first President Bush, called on EPA to study the health and environmental impacts of mercury emissions from utilities by 1993. Unfortunately, this vital study was not completed until the end of 1997. The amendments also ordered EPA to explore available technologies for their emission reduction potential, and to regulate mercury and other air toxics, if deemed appropriate and necessary by the administrator. Such a determination should have been made soon after release of the study, during the Clinton administration. However, the Clinton EPA did not issue such a finding until December 2000. EPA Administrator Carol Browner found that mercury regulation was, in fact, appropriate and necessary, given the results of the prior EPA's study. This kicked off the drafting of maximum achievable control technology--or MACT--standards for mercury. However, because EPA missed deadlines in the Act to make that determination, environmentalists sued and obtained a settlement creating a schedule for the development of MACT standards. Now, the second Bush EPA must propose mercury emission standards for utilities by this December, and finalize them by next December. These standards must be met by the end of 2007 at each unit. EPA could expedite finalization of the standard to give industry more time to comply, but instead the Agency has opted for delays. I would also note that EPA is currently violating the Clean Air Act's schedule for air toxics controls for many other sources, sending millions more pounds of dangerous emissions into the air we breathe. Mr. President, industry information shows that the technology exists today to reduce utility mercury emissions by 90 percent or more--down to about 5 tons per year. Under MACT, the EPA should set its standard to match the capability of the best utility performers. Not coincidentally, a 90 percent cut in utility mercury emissions is guaranteed in my bill, the Clean Power Act of 2003. However, the current Bush administration has proposed to derail EPA's mercury standard--in essence, to violate the intent of the Clean Air Act. This administration's multi-pollutant plan, called Clear Skies, does away with the Clean Air Act's technology standard for mercury. In its place, Clear Skies calls for weaker standards and a 10-year delay in their achievement. Plus, EPA is prevented from using its existing authority to require further reductions if residual risk from utility air toxics remains a problem. Could it be that the administration is more interested in giving polluters a free ride than in protecting public health? This harmful bias towards irresponsible industry is something we saw 50 years ago in Minamata Bay--and we should have learned a lesson about its ill effects. The Clear Skies polluter payoff does not aim for this five ton goal by 2008, but for 15 tons in 2018 and on--for eternity. As this chart shows, compared to a strict interpretation of what the Clean Air Act could do for our health, this rollback totals 520 percent more toxic mercury in our environment and on our dinner tables before 2018, and 300 percent more mercury after 2018. Why would we pass this risk on to our children? I have to believe that no compassionate parent- or grandparent-to-be would knowingly do that. EPA has thoroughly studied the mercury threat and devised an adequate health threshold--which has been supported by the NAS. The agency must follow through with the law of the land and cut mercury emissions from utilities now. In fact, this administration does not have the authority to do any less. We in Congress must not and cannot in good conscience give them that authority through the Clear Skies rollback. If any of my colleagues doubt the potential benefits of the current Clean Air Act, I suggest they ask this administration for its long overdue economic analysis of today's best technologies--what the Act would require utilities to install. My colleagues should know that they won't get an honest, fair, or timely response, because that response would show that, by comparison, Clear Skies is just a license to keep sending uncontrolled mercury into our air. It is hard for me to grasp why any administration would want to keep Congress and the public in the dark about the real benefits of the Clean Air Act. Could it be that the administration wants to distort the perceived benefits of any proposed changes.? To make matters worse, in a recent hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, an official from the Council of Economic Advisors suggested that the administration now wants Congress to modify the mercury cap in their air pollution giveaway to make it even less protective. Instead of capping mercury at twenty-six tons in 2010, the administration would like us to consider a cap as high as 46 tons. This is an outrage. Utilities today emit about 48 tons of toxic mercury every year. So the modified Clear Skies cap would mean only more inaction. Candidate George W. Bush started with a four-pollutant bill, then dropped carbon in 2001 to get to three pollutants. Now, his administration is more or less admitting they support merely a 2- pollutant bill. Is that what they consider progress? Why on earth would we allow them to go forward with this plan? The scientific evidence about the dangers of mercury exposure mounts annually. The technologies exist today to dramatically reduce emissions and the associated risk. To do otherwise abdicates the administration's and our responsibility to protect public health. We have a vital choice to make in Congress this year. Either we uphold the law as written in the Clean Air Act or we shut our eyes while the pollution and damage to our health and environment goes on. The delays and distortion must stop. This in not the 1950s, as much as the administration would like it to be. I have no doubt there will be misguided efforts to stall the mercury standards, which are already late. I promise that I will keep a watchful eye. But I urge all mothers and fathers to pay heed as well--your children's and grandchildren's health hangs in the balance. I have my own health advisory to post on the walls of Congress today: The administration appears less interested in protecting mothers and children from mercury poisoning, and more interested in protecting the polluters' bottom line. This may explain why they are trying to replace current law with Clear Skies.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. First, I commend my good friend from California for her excellent statement and revealing to the Nation the seriousness we have in the ability to provide jobs with qualified workers. Just this past decade, we brought 4 million workers into this country to take the high-skilled jobs of our Nation because we could not provide them from our own school systems. Yet we have thousands and thousands of unemployed and unskilled workers who have managed to get through our school systems without the necessary skills. We have a crisis in this Nation, and we have had it for years, and that is in education. This administration is totally ignoring the fact that where we should be putting the funds is in preventing this necessity of having to bring in workers from foreign nations, whether it be from Europe or elsewhere. Most of them come from Asia now. Millions and millions are coming in. Yet our own young people in this country do not have the skills because their school systems are failing. And we are cutting back and back on the funding for education in this Nation. This administration recognizes we have a problem and realizes our children need help; we have the Leave No Child Behind Program. But we have no funding to prevent the terrible situation that was just outlined by the Senator from California. I praise her for that. But let's wake up and do something about it rather than bringing in millions and millions of workers from Asia to take the jobs that our young people ought to have the skills to take.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the good government amendments that my colleague, Senator Byrd, shall be offering later today. The public is looking to the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that our country is prepared to the best of its ability for any future terrorist attack. What must the public think when they see individuals who recently worked for Secretary Ridge turning around and lobbying for a specific special interest? What do they think when individuals who run companies competing for government contracts from the Department of Homeland Security are appointed to a special advisory council to that same Department? These events may not be hindering our preparations against another terrorist attack, but they surely raise an appearance of am impropriety. To ensure that the public has full confidence in the Department of Homeland Security and the actions that are taken to prepare the country, the Senate should pass these important amendments. I thank my colleague, Senator Byrd, for raising these important issues. I urge my colleagues to support these good government amendments. I yield the floor.