Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce today, along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Collins, Chafee, and Rockefeller, the ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005.'' This legislation is the product of a bipartisan effort to ensure that those individuals in our welfare system who face the toughest barriers to work, such as individuals with disabilities or substance abuse problems, are provided the best opportunity for future success and productivity. This legislation gives states the tools and incentives necessary to assist them in moving individuals from welfare to work. The current welfare system has been widely regarded as a success in moving individuals off the welfare rolls, and states have been given incentives to do so. While this approach has been regarded as successful, it has one major flaw. Although the states are provided incentives for removing people from the welfare rolls, no incentives exist for placing individuals into sustainable employment. States receive the same credit for moving a welfare recipient into a high paying job as they do for sanctioning that person outright. This perverse incentive has been particularly difficult for the many welfare recipients who have disabilities or struggle with substance abuse problems. 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 has been diagnosed with a disability and receive services through the Vermont Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Vermont's effort to provide these services enables welfare recipients to, move from welfare to work. However, these services are not included in the core work activities allowed under the current welfare law. Vermont receives no credit or incentive for moving these individuals to independence. This policy is wrong. If we truly want welfare to be an initiative that helps people to become independent and self-sufficient, then our policies must reflect our intentions. That is where ``The Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' comes into play. The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would allow states to count certain rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities and treatment for substance abuse toward work activities. Here's how it works: the legislation would give states the ability to count a welfare recipient who is engaged in work, or work preparation activities, to participate in a drug treatment program for three months. At the end of this 3-month period, the state would be given the opportunity to re- evaluate the status of the individual and decide whether to continue treatment for an additional 3 months. This is the same process that is envisioned in the ``Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act'' that the Finance Committee is planning to consider this spring. The PRIDE approach would then require an individual with a severe barrier to meet the same standard as a non- disabled individual. However, the ``Pathways to Independence Act'' would allow the state to continue treatment for the individual, provided that the individual is meeting at least half of the regular work requirements and following their treatment program for the remaining hours. This is a common sense proposal. It is consistent with the research on providing effective support programs for people with disabilities and effective treatment programs for people struggling with substance abuse leading to sustainable employment. By allowing states to count these individuals in the ``working'' category, we provide the states with the necessary incentives to engage those most difficult to serve in meaningful ways that will help them to work. It will allow the states to place people with disabilities and substance abuse problems on a pathway to independence. The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would supply the states with the tools and incentives necessary to provide welfare recipients with the greatest chance for independence and self-sufficiency. If we truly want to take the necessary steps towards achieving this goal and improving upon our current welfare system, this legislation must be part of any welfare reform reauthorization that is enacted. I would like to thank the members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities for their help in developing this legislation and their strong letter in support of this initiative. I especially want to thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his commitment to this legislation and all of our cosponsors in this endeavor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce today, along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Collins, Chafee, and Rockefeller, the ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005.'' This legislation is the product of a bipartisan effort to ensure that those individuals in our welfare system who face the toughest barriers to work, such as individuals with disabilities or substance abuse problems, are provided the best opportunity for future success and productivity. This legislation gives states the tools and incentives necessary to assist them in moving individuals from welfare to work. The current welfare system has been widely regarded as a success in moving individuals off the welfare rolls, and states have been given incentives to do so. While this approach has been regarded as successful, it has one major flaw. Although the states are provided incentives for removing people from the welfare rolls, no incentives exist for placing individuals into sustainable employment. States receive the same credit for moving a welfare recipient into a high paying job as they do for sanctioning that person outright. This perverse incentive has been particularly difficult for the many welfare recipients who have disabilities or struggle with substance abuse problems. 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 has been diagnosed with a disability and receive services through the Vermont Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Vermont's effort to provide these services enables welfare recipients to, move from welfare to work. However, these services are not included in the core work activities allowed under the current welfare law. Vermont receives no credit or incentive for moving these individuals to independence. This policy is wrong. If we truly want welfare to be an initiative that helps people to become independent and self-sufficient, then our policies must reflect our intentions. That is where ``The Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' comes into play. The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would allow states to count certain rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities and treatment for substance abuse toward work activities. Here's how it works: the legislation would give states the ability to count a welfare recipient who is engaged in work, or work preparation activities, to participate in a drug treatment program for three months. At the end of this 3-month period, the state would be given the opportunity to re- evaluate the status of the individual and decide whether to continue treatment for an additional 3 months. This is the same process that is envisioned in the ``Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act'' that the Finance Committee is planning to consider this spring. The PRIDE approach would then require an individual with a severe barrier to meet the same standard as a non- disabled individual. However, the ``Pathways to Independence Act'' would allow the state to continue treatment for the individual, provided that the individual is meeting at least half of the regular work requirements and following their treatment program for the remaining hours. This is a common sense proposal. It is consistent with the research on providing effective support programs for people with disabilities and effective treatment programs for people struggling with substance abuse leading to sustainable employment. By allowing states to count these individuals in the ``working'' category, we provide the states with the necessary incentives to engage those most difficult to serve in meaningful ways that will help them to work. It will allow the states to place people with disabilities and substance abuse problems on a pathway to independence. The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would supply the states with the tools and incentives necessary to provide welfare recipients with the greatest chance for independence and self-sufficiency. If we truly want to take the necessary steps towards achieving this goal and improving upon our current welfare system, this legislation must be part of any welfare reform reauthorization that is enacted. I would like to thank the members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities for their help in developing this legislation and their strong letter in support of this initiative. I especially want to thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his commitment to this legislation and all of our cosponsors in this endeavor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, all of us are privileged to be living in an era of unprecedented scientific discovery in the biological sciences. Since 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick first identified the structure of DNA or the double helix we have relentlessly increased our ability to decipher an individual's hereditary information. At the time of their discovery, Watson and Crick said that they had ``found the secret of life'' and to be certain, life, as we know it, has not been the same since. Today, we have the entire genetic map--the human genome--that is revealing a greater understanding of a range of diseases and their treatment. We also have a much greater capacity to know an individual's biological destiny as it is encoded in their DNA, which is essentially a personal genetic blueprint of their current biology as well as a predictor of their biological future. The benefit of knowing this information cannot be overstated. It can save countless lives. Part of the challenge of having this information is to ensure that it not be used unfairly to influence an individual's sociological destiny. This is the reason I am joining with Senator Snowe and our other colleagues in support of S. 306, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005. S. 306 will prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their genetic makeup in both health insurance and employment. This legislation represents a major contribution to civil rights law. It is a victory for consumers, health insurers and health care providers; and it is a victory for employees and employers. It is the result of almost seven years of effort and it is identical to a measure that passed the Senate during the 108th Congress by a vote of 95 to 0. Together with the much-deserved excitement over the potential of genetic research, there have also been long-standing concerns that genetic information, in the wrong hands, could be misused. Many people have argued that an individual's genetic information which may indicate a predisposition to a particular disease could be used to deny that individual health insurance or employment opportunities. The promise of better health would instead become a potential for greater discrimination and disadvantage. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005 is designed to address those concerns. Existing antidiscrimination law has been enacted over the years as a means of correcting longstanding abuses in voter rights, employment, housing and education. However, under current law a person who has suffered employment or health insurance discrimination because of their genetic makeup has very little, if any, recourse to legal remedies. This legislation addresses this problem by creating new enforceable rights for individuals similar to those available under existing civil rights, education and fair employment law. It is important to note that to date, there has not been a pattern or clear prevalence of genetic discrimination. However, there is anecdotal evidence that people have refused to take genetic tests because of their fear that the predictive information would lead to discrimination. We know the science is rapidly moving forward and we are learning more every day about the ``predictive'' correlation between genetic markers and certain diseases. It is not difficult to imagine such discrimination occurring in the near future. So in a sense, we can take that rare opportunity to be ahead of the curve and enact legislation to preempt discriminatory practices and prevent them from ever happening. I believe the compromise legislation we consider today will be successful in preventing abuses in the insuring of health services and employment. However, it is extremely important that we remain vigilant against this type of discrimination from ever getting a foothold in our society and if this measure proves insufficient and needs to be strengthened, then we will be back to correct the problems and that effort will have my support. As I mentioned earlier, the genesis of this legislation links to many years of effort on the part of several of our colleagues. My friend, Senator Snowe, has for many years been the leader of one effort in which I was proud to join, together with Senators Frist, Enzi, Collins and Hagel. In another keystone effort, the previous minority leader, Senator Daschle, joined with Senators Kennedy, Dodd and Harkin to delineate the need for employment protections. All have contributed extensively to a better understanding of the many critical and complex definitions that are the heart of this legislation. We could not have been successful last Congress in weaving an agreement between these bills without the commitment of Senator Gregg, who as chairman of the HELP Committee during the 108th Congress, devoted his energies to finding a middle ground that made today's bipartisan agreements possible. Finally, I commend Senator Enzi, the current chairman of the HELP Committee, not only because he elevated the importance of this bill by moving it to the front of the legislative calendar, but also for the many years of effort he has dedicated to seeing this measure enacted. It is wholly appropriate that he is there as chairman to see it cross the legislative finish line. Mr. President, I am pleased at the willingness both sides have shown to work through the many difficult aspects of this key issue. Through many meetings and discussions, we have been able to reach agreements on an array of important issues that have improved and strengthened the legislation. I look forward to continuing this cooperative approach as we move to enact this important and landmark initiative and I urge our colleagues in the House to pass it in the near. The President supports this legislation, and it is my hope that we can enact it into law before the end of this Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in its favor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge that the international global warming pact known as the Kyoto Protocol has entered into force. This happens only 7 years after it was negotiated. The Protocol imposes limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that scientists blame for increasing world temperatures. As my colleagues know, President Bush decided to abandon the Protocol and any serious international negotiations on the matter in March 2001. That unilateral abandonment leaves the world to wonder why the Nation that contributes the most greenhouse gas emissions to the world atmosphere refuses to accept responsibility for these emissions and refuses to cooperate with the international community to curb the global warming threat. I assume it was no coincidence that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, on which I serve as ranking member, was supposed to consider legislation today called the Clear Skies Act. If passed, this legislation will create anything but clear skies. The bill rolls back steady progress under the Clean Air Act and actually would increase this country's greenhouse gas emissions more than no legislation. The chairman of the committee has decided to take more time to craft this measure, due in no small part to the fact that the bill lacks the support in committee to be approved and reported to the Senate today. I commend the chairman for making that decision today--the same day the Kyoto Protocol has taken effect--to more carefully consider this important measure. In the coming weeks as we discuss this legislation, I hope that we can reach agreement on a bill that truly does clear our skies. To me, that means a bill that not only improves upon the Clean Air Act, but that also addresses our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Yesterday, on the eve of the Kyoto Protocol entering into force, a White House spokesman stated that the United States has made an unprecedented commitment to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in a way that continues to grow our economy. Mr. President, I have seen no evidence of this commitment. For my part, I have already introduced the Clean Power Act of 2005. I also intend to introduce the Renewable Portfolio Standard Act of 2005 and the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005, two bills designed to use our resources more efficiently. If President Bush signed into law a measure that caps or truly required reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, evidence of a real commitment would be apparent, not just to me but to the entire world. I call upon my Senate and House colleagues to mark the occasion of the Kyoto Protocol's entering into force by embarking upon serious work to craft legislation that imposes credible deadlines to achieve caps and significant reductions to our Nation's sizeable and growing contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, We are here today discussing the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the next Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Let me begin by thanking Secretary Ridge for all he did in leading the department through its creation and start-up. It was a difficult job and the Nation owes him a debt of gratitude for tackling this difficult task. I opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, in part, because I was concerned that by combining disparate areas of the Federal Government we could create more problems than benefits. Several recent reports from the Government Accountability Office have shown that this is a valid concern. The next Secretary of the Homeland Security Department will need to focus time and energy on ensuring that the various divisions within the department become integrated. A separate and divided Department of Homeland Security cannot work to increase our national security. Our best chance for preventing another terrorist attack relies on a coordinated and well run agency. If this does not occur, I fear that my original concern regarding the creation of this entity will be realized. Judge Chertoff has an impressive resume and, in fact, has already been confirmed by the Senate for several positions. His experience includes serving as a Federal appellate court judge, United States Attorney, and head of the Criminal Division at the United States Department of Justice. However, questions have been raised about the potential involvement of Judge Chertoff in the prison abuse scandals, an issue that was pivotal in my opposition to Judge Gonzales being confirmed as the United States Attorney General. Senators Levin and Lieberman have been working to determine whether Judge Chertoff had any knowledge about the scandal, and they deserve our profound thanks. However, as in too many cases, this administration has made a decision to keep much of the information from the public. The citizens of the United States deserve honesty and openness from the government. The information that has been revealed shows that Judge Chertoff had no knowledge or involvement in the torture scandal. I must make a decision based on the record I have in front of me, not on the possibility of the record I do not know. Reviewing this record leads me to believe that Judge Chertoff would be capable of performing the duties of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and I will thus support his confirmation to that position. It is my hope that Judge Chertoff will complete the work that Secretary Ridge began and create an integrated Department of Homeland Security. I also hope that Judge Chertoff will be able to lead by example and create the open environment at the Department of Homeland Security that my constituents and the citizens of this Nation deserve and expect. It will take many hours of hard work and it will not be easy. I wish him the best of luck in accomplishing the task.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. I believe there are problems with our current class action system that should be addressed through Congressional action. These problems include: Cases and controversies that are national in scope and are currently being decided in State courts; Decisions or settlements that are determined in one State's court system, are being applied nationwide, and conflict with laws in other States; and Plaintiffs receiving little compensation, or in the most extreme example, actually owing money from the settlement of a class action lawsuit. Class action lawsuits serve a useful purpose in our judicial system. Class actions allow individuals to merge a number of similar claims into one lawsuit, which can be an efficient use of judicial resources. Class action lawsuits enable individuals with small claims the ability to seek justice. The legislation we are considering today will fairly determine whether a class action should be considered in a State court or a Federal court. Thus, the legislation will help ensure that issues that are national in scope are heard in federal court, while issues that are local in nature are heard in State courts. The Class Action Fairness Act also provides some common sense reforms and oversight of the class action settlement process. These changes will help ensure that individuals who should be compensated receive fair compensation for their injuries, rather than worthless coupons, or actually owing money. I cannot, and would not, support legislation that denies individuals their ability to pursue compensation in the legal system for damages they have suffered. The legislation before this body is a bipartisan compromise worked out over many years. It does not deny individuals their right to pursue justice through the legal system. Because I believe the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 fairly addresses the problems in our class action system, I will support its passage today.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a strong supporter and original cosponsor of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, which is being introduced today. This legislation will ensure that the seasonal businesses in our country have the workers they need to support our economy and enable the economy to flourish. I would first like to thank Senators Mikulski and Gregg for bringing such a large, bipartisan group of Senators together to create this legislative solution. Last year, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced in March that they had received enough petitions to meet the cap on H-2B visas. As a result, they stopped accepting petitions for these temporary work visas halfway through the Federal fiscal year. This announcement was a shock to many businesses around the country that depend on foreign workers to fill their temporary and seasonal positions. Tourism is the largest sector of Vermont's economy and as a result, many Vermont businesses hire seasonal staff during their winter, summer or fall foliage seasons. Last year, I heard from many Vermont businesses that they were unable to employ foreign workers for their summer and fall seasons because the cap had been reached. Not only was this unexpected, but many of the employees were people who had been returning to the same employer year after year. These employers lost essential staff and, in many cases, well trained, experienced staff. Many employers told me it is extremely difficult to find Americans to fill these seasonal positions, especially in areas of Vermont where the unemployment rate is less than 2 percent. One Vermont resort only survived Vermont's fall foliage season because of the dedication of their permanent employees. Instead of 35 housekeeping staff, they made do with 8. Staff was asked to work 12 to 14 hours per day, 6 or 7 days per week. At this particular resort, the vice president, general manager, administrative and technology managers, and marketing manager all cleaned rooms. While they are proud of the work of their staff, they believe their business and their personnel will suffer if they are not able to employ seasonal foreign workers again this year. They foresee a devastating effect on the family business they have owned and operated for the past 40 years if they are not able to bring in foreign workers soon. I have also heard from Vermont businesses that had to lay off or not hire American workers because they could not find enough employees to fill their crews. Without the workers to complete projects, they could not hire or maintain their year-round staff. They also could not bid on projects and many had to scale back their operations. In these instances, the lack of seasonal workers had a direct effect on our economy and the employment of American workers. As many may know, I believe strongly that American workers must be given the opportunity to fill jobs and strengthen our nation's workforce. However, the companies I have referred to today, and all of the others that have contacted me, did their utmost to find Americans for the positions available. Efforts to find workers included: working closely with the State of Vermont's Employment and Training office; increasing wages and benefits; and implementing aggressive year-round recruiting. While many Vermont businesses were able to survive last year, thanks to that old Yankee ingenuity, I am not optimistic about this year. The cap on H-2B visas was reached in early January, barely a quarter of the way through the fiscal year. It is imperative we immediately address this problem in order to prevent further harm to this Nation's small businesses and the economy.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a strong supporter and original cosponsor of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, which is being introduced today. This legislation will ensure that the seasonal businesses in our country have the workers they need to support our economy and enable the economy to flourish. I would first like to thank Senators Mikulski and Gregg for bringing such a large, bipartisan group of Senators together to create this legislative solution. Last year, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced in March that they had received enough petitions to meet the cap on H-2B visas. As a result, they stopped accepting petitions for these temporary work visas halfway through the Federal fiscal year. This announcement was a shock to many businesses around the country that depend on foreign workers to fill their temporary and seasonal positions. Tourism is the largest sector of Vermont's economy and as a result, many Vermont businesses hire seasonal staff during their winter, summer or fall foliage seasons. Last year, I heard from many Vermont businesses that they were unable to employ foreign workers for their summer and fall seasons because the cap had been reached. Not only was this unexpected, but many of the employees were people who had been returning to the same employer year after year. These employers lost essential staff and, in many cases, well trained, experienced staff. Many employers told me it is extremely difficult to find Americans to fill these seasonal positions, especially in areas of Vermont where the unemployment rate is less than 2 percent. One Vermont resort only survived Vermont's fall foliage season because of the dedication of their permanent employees. Instead of 35 housekeeping staff, they made do with 8. Staff was asked to work 12 to 14 hours per day, 6 or 7 days per week. At this particular resort, the vice president, general manager, administrative and technology managers, and marketing manager all cleaned rooms. While they are proud of the work of their staff, they believe their business and their personnel will suffer if they are not able to employ seasonal foreign workers again this year. They foresee a devastating effect on the family business they have owned and operated for the past 40 years if they are not able to bring in foreign workers soon. I have also heard from Vermont businesses that had to lay off or not hire American workers because they could not find enough employees to fill their crews. Without the workers to complete projects, they could not hire or maintain their year-round staff. They also could not bid on projects and many had to scale back their operations. In these instances, the lack of seasonal workers had a direct effect on our economy and the employment of American workers. As many may know, I believe strongly that American workers must be given the opportunity to fill jobs and strengthen our nation's workforce. However, the companies I have referred to today, and all of the others that have contacted me, did their utmost to find Americans for the positions available. Efforts to find workers included: working closely with the State of Vermont's Employment and Training office; increasing wages and benefits; and implementing aggressive year-round recruiting. While many Vermont businesses were able to survive last year, thanks to that old Yankee ingenuity, I am not optimistic about this year. The cap on H-2B visas was reached in early January, barely a quarter of the way through the fiscal year. It is imperative we immediately address this problem in order to prevent further harm to this Nation's small businesses and the economy.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce the Champlain Valley National Heritage Act of 2005. I am joined by Senator Leahy and Senators Schumer and Clinton of New York. This bill will establish a National Heritage Partnership within the Champlain Valley. Passage of this bill will culminate a process to enhance the incredible cultural resources of the Champlain Valley. The Champlain Valley of Vermont and New York has one of the richest and most intact collections of historic resources in the United States. Fort Ticonderoga still stands where it has for centuries, at the scene of numerous battles critical to the birth of our nation. Revolutionary gunboats have recently been found fully intact on the bottom of Lake Champlain. Our cemeteries are the permanent resting place for great explorers, soldiers and sailors. The United States and Canada would not exist today but for events that occurred in this region. We in Vermont and New York take great pride in our history. We preserve it, honor it and show it off to visitors from around the world. These visitors are also very important to our economy. Tourism is among the most important industries in this region and has much potential for growth. The Champlain Valley Heritage Partnership will bring together more than one hundred local groups working to preserve and promote our heritage. This project has taken many years for me to bring to the point of introducing legislation. This has been time well spent working at the grass-roots level to develop a framework to direct federal resources to where it will do the most good. I am confident that we have found the best model. This will be a true partnership that supports each member but does not impose any new federal requirements. The Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership will preserve our historic resources, interpret and teach about the events that shaped our nation and will be an engine for economic growth. I am hopeful that this bill, which was passed unanimously by the Senate last year, will become law during this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be the next United States Attorney General. It is disappointing to have to oppose this nomination, but based on his record, I believe there is no other choice. Judge Gonzales's life story is a shining example of the American dream. From humble beginnings he rose to serve on the Texas Supreme Court, become counsel to the President of the United States, and has now been nominated for one of the three highest Cabinet positions in the United States. His life story is compelling and admirable, but that alone is not enough to support someone for the position of Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, and serves as the face for truth and justice in this country. This individual should and must be committed to the sanctity of the law, protecting the rights and liberties of all people, and ensuring that the laws are obeyed. I believe Judge Gonzales's work as counsel to the President shows him to be unfit to perform the duties of the Attorney General. My concern centers on three events during Judge Gonzales's tenure as counsel to the President. His actions during these times cause me to question whether he can fulfill the duties of the Attorney General as I just outlined. The first event involves Judge Gonzales asking the United States Department of Justice to prepare a legal opinion on acceptable interrogation standards that would be allowed under the Convention Against Torture. This memo became the basis for the standards developed by the Defense Department's working group on detainee interrogation, which subsequently have been used in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and Iraq. The Justice Department memo ignores significant contrary case law, a plain reading of the statute, and the legislative history of the law. In doing so, the memo created such a narrow definition of torture that only actions that cause ``equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death'' would be considered torture. The analysis included in the memo has been called weak and reckless by other lawyers, human rights groups, former officials from this administration, military officers, and military lawyers. However, it appears that Judge Gonzales had no misgivings with the memorandum at the time. In fact, it appears that Judge Gonzales continues to have no concerns with the conclusions of this memo, even though prior to his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the Department of Justice issued another superseding memorandum that reaches a much different conclusion. According to the new memorandum, torture is defined as physical suffering ``even if it does not involve severe physical pain.'' Second, in a memo Judge Gonzales wrote to the President, he advised that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to captured members of al- Qaida and the Taliban. This was a reversal of longstanding United States policy and practice of adhering to the Geneva Conventions. This conclusion is a misstatement and misinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions require humane treatment of all captives, whether soldiers, insurgents, or civilians. Additionally, Judge Gonzales also requested a memo concerning the Geneva Conventions' effect on the transfer of protected persons from occupied territory. This memo led to the creation of the ``ghost detainee program'' in Iraq, a practice that is against the spirit, plain reading, and any interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. Finally, and most disturbingly, Judge Gonzales has advised the President that if a legal statute infringes on the authority of the President as the Commander-In-Chief, then that statute should be considered unconstitutional and the President could refuse to comply with the law. Such a position is contrary to settled separation of powers case law, and has most recently been repudiated by the United States Supreme Court in its decision last year on the rights of detainees. These events lead me to question the willingness of Judge Gonzales to, as required, protect the sanctity of the law; protect the rights and liberties of all people, not just some, but all; ensure that Federal laws are obeyed, and, effectively perform the duties of Attorney General of the United States. I am truly saddened to have to oppose the nomination of an Attorney General for the first time in my career. However, the Nation's chief law enforcement officer must be required to show, beyond any doubt, the utmost respect for the law and an unwavering determination to defend the law. Instead, Judge Gonzales's record as counsel to the President points to repeated attempts to skirt the law rather than uphold it. I must conclude that given the record before us, Judge Gonzales is not qualified for the job. Following the Iraq prison scandal, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that people should not base their opinion of the United States on the events that occurred there, but on the actions we take thereafter. Therefore, what will be the world's opinion of the United States if we elevate one of the architects of the policies that led to the Iraq prison abuses to the position of chief law enforcement officer of our country? I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I take very seriously the United States Senate's responsibility to provide advice and consent for the President's nominees. Generally, I believe that the President of the United States should be allowed to have the people he chooses in his cabinet to implement the policies he has been elected to put in place-- providing they are qualified to do the job. The vote should not be about the ideology of the nominee--that decision is up to the President--but rather about the nominee's ability to perform the job. Condoleezza Rice certainly has the academic training and the professional credentials to be Secretary of State. She is bright, articulate, and well versed in diplomatic procedures. She works extremely hard, is dedicated to her job, and is very close to the President. In many respects, she was the natural choice to succeed Secretary Colin Powell. But, I am afraid there is a showstopper here. As National Security Advisor, Ms. Rice has been one of the most public faces of this administration's policy in Iraq. She has been the public face of this administration's crusade to generate American support for an invasion. In her effort to do this, Ms. Rice has made many of the most categorical statements on Iraq, claiming that we had evidence that Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam had ties to the al Qaeda terrorists, that we were threatened by a mushroom cloud from Iraq, or a little vial that Saddam might give to terrorists to poison us. Over and over again, Ms. Rice has used every shred of evidence she could find, even evidence that the CIA urged her to retract, in order to make the case that Iraq was a direct and immediate threat to the United States. We now know that most of the intelligence information that led the President to conclude Iraq was an immediate threat to the United States was wrong. Not only have no weapons of mass destruction been found in Iraq, but no evidence has surfaced of any recent attempt by Saddam to develop these weapons. No ties with al Qaeda have come to light. Ironically, it now appears that since the U.S. invasion, terrorists groups are enjoying a surge in recruitment and have even set up training camps in Iraq. Hatred of America's actions in Iraq has surged throughout the Muslim world and beyond. Condoleezza Rice is not solely responsible for this dangerous turn of events, but she is inextricably linked to this policy, and refuses to admit that any mistakes have been made by this administration. A hallmark of the administration's Iraq policy has been a refusal to work with the international community. President Bush preferred to go it alone rather than be hampered by the constraints of the United Nations or make the concessions necessary to form a broad coalition. Ms. Rice was a prime spokesperson for this policy. She repeatedly justified the doctrine of preemption and defended the wisdom of going it alone, even if it meant losing the support of our closest allies. She was the public face of this policy of contempt for the role of diplomacy. The Secretary of State is America's second most visible face to the world. If he or she is to be effective, the Secretary must be seen as truthful, forthright, and respectful of other nations. The hallmark of this administration's foreign policy has been its willingness to distort information in the service of its political objectives, and its failure to tell the truth. It has viewed other nations as either naive or cowardly if they have disagreed with our policy. Ms. Rice has been the public face of this policy and this ``modus operendi''. Nothing could be more detrimental to her ability to be a successful Secretary of State. I have said all along that this war is wrong, that the administration's rationale for this war was faulty, and that the consequences of this war may be very detrimental to our national interest and our national security. Unfortunately, it looks like these observations are proving correct. More than 1,370 American soldiers have died in this war, and over 10,000 have been wounded, many of them maimed for life. Countless thousands of Iraqis have died--we will probably never know how many. Their country has been devastated, and as of now, it appears this Sunday's elections are unlikely to bring about any resolution of the internal strife. Civil war is a real possibility, and today it is hard to see how progress is going to be made toward the administration's goal of stability in Iraq. Condoleezza Rice has been a lead architect of our Nation's failed foreign policy and of the war in Iraq. Therefore I believe she is severely handicapped in her ability to be America's chief diplomat and the chief architect of America's effort to resolve these problems. This administration has not hesitated to play loose with the truth and show contempt for international opinion. These are not the tools of successful diplomacy, the primary responsibility of the Secretary of State. Therefore, sadly, for the first time in my Senate career, I must cast my vote against a Cabinet-level nominee. I will vote no on the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am both sad and happy to re-introduce the Clean Power Act again with Senators Lieberman and Collins and the other 16 cosponsors of the legislation from the last Congress. I am happy that they are all still as committed as I am to the fight to reduce pollution and to protect the public's health and to clean up and conserve the environment for future generations. I am sad that we have not made more progress in this fight to reduce harmful emissions of sulfur dioxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), mercury, and carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power plants. More than 25,000 people are dying prematurely every year because of fine particulate pollution (PM-2.5) that is emitted by power plants in the form of SOX and NOX. More than 4,000 people are dying of heart attacks due to ozone exposure, part of which is caused by power plant emissions. And, over 160 million people are living in areas with unhealthy air quality. Acid rain continues to fall on our forests and lakes stressing ecosystems in the Northeast and the Southeast. Nearly all the States have some kind of fish consumption warning or advisory due to mercury contamination. And, earlier this week, the chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, who was placed at the request of the Bush Administration, said that he personally believes that the world has ``already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.'' I am sad because there has been zero movement on multi-pollutant legislation in Congress since this legislation was approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in June 2002 in basically the same form we are introducing. As Senators may be aware, prior to that Committee action, I and Senator Reid before me, sought to engage in a bipartisan dialogue to move four pollutant legislation. Though the President promised to support such legislation while a candidate in 2000, he reversed himself on that pledge in early 2001. Since early 2001, the Administration refused to negotiate, to consider compromise or even to respond to legitimate requests for information or timely technical assistance. Instead, they have concentrated their efforts on undermining the Clean Air Act with a particularly focus on gutting New Source Review. They have not shown any real interest in legislating in this matter. I am sad that the Administration's general approach has been to go backward before 1990, to undue President Bush Sr.'s legacy. That is not what the American people want and it is not what they and their children deserve. They deserve better. They deserve the promise of the Clean Air Act which is constant improvement and moving forward to provide safe air for everyone to breathe. It is long past time that all power plants in this country meet modern emission performance standards. There is simply no excuse in a technologically advanced society like ours to have power plants running on 1930s technology. It should be embarrassing for us all and requires a swift and concerted effort and significantly more funding than the Administration and Congress have appropriated thus far to maximize the use of all of our energy resources, including coal and renewables, in an environmentally friendly way. Simply letting these old dirty dinosaurs keep chugging along is bad for public health and the environment and bad for innovation and the development of new technologies. It is a stone age response to a modern day problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am both sad and happy to re-introduce the Clean Power Act again with Senators Lieberman and Collins and the other 16 cosponsors of the legislation from the last Congress. I am happy that they are all still as committed as I am to the fight to reduce pollution and to protect the public's health and to clean up and conserve the environment for future generations. I am sad that we have not made more progress in this fight to reduce harmful emissions of sulfur dioxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), mercury, and carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power plants. More than 25,000 people are dying prematurely every year because of fine particulate pollution (PM-2.5) that is emitted by power plants in the form of SOX and NOX. More than 4,000 people are dying of heart attacks due to ozone exposure, part of which is caused by power plant emissions. And, over 160 million people are living in areas with unhealthy air quality. Acid rain continues to fall on our forests and lakes stressing ecosystems in the Northeast and the Southeast. Nearly all the States have some kind of fish consumption warning or advisory due to mercury contamination. And, earlier this week, the chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, who was placed at the request of the Bush Administration, said that he personally believes that the world has ``already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.'' I am sad because there has been zero movement on multi-pollutant legislation in Congress since this legislation was approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in June 2002 in basically the same form we are introducing. As Senators may be aware, prior to that Committee action, I and Senator Reid before me, sought to engage in a bipartisan dialogue to move four pollutant legislation. Though the President promised to support such legislation while a candidate in 2000, he reversed himself on that pledge in early 2001. Since early 2001, the Administration refused to negotiate, to consider compromise or even to respond to legitimate requests for information or timely technical assistance. Instead, they have concentrated their efforts on undermining the Clean Air Act with a particularly focus on gutting New Source Review. They have not shown any real interest in legislating in this matter. I am sad that the Administration's general approach has been to go backward before 1990, to undue President Bush Sr.'s legacy. That is not what the American people want and it is not what they and their children deserve. They deserve better. They deserve the promise of the Clean Air Act which is constant improvement and moving forward to provide safe air for everyone to breathe. It is long past time that all power plants in this country meet modern emission performance standards. There is simply no excuse in a technologically advanced society like ours to have power plants running on 1930s technology. It should be embarrassing for us all and requires a swift and concerted effort and significantly more funding than the Administration and Congress have appropriated thus far to maximize the use of all of our energy resources, including coal and renewables, in an environmentally friendly way. Simply letting these old dirty dinosaurs keep chugging along is bad for public health and the environment and bad for innovation and the development of new technologies. It is a stone age response to a modern day problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. David A. Austin, an extraordinary man who touched many lives but passed away on November 4, 2004. Dr. Austin lived a life full of vitality and enthusiasm. He had an accomplished career, always helped others without thought for himself and made his family the center of his life. Dr. Austin was born in Brattleboro, VT, where he graduated from St. Michael's High School and received his Bachelor of Science from St. Michael's College. From there he went on to medical school at the University of Vermont where he began his lifelong career of healing and helping others. After receiving his Naval Medical Officer commission, he continued his education, graduating from the Naval Deep Sea Diving School here in Washington, DC and the School of Submarine and Undersea Medicine in New London, CT. After completing his active duty and residency at St. Albans Naval Hospital in New York, Dr. Austin opened his medical practice in Rutland in 1970. When not practicing medicine, he was busy serving the community as a member of the Christ the King Elementary School Parent- Teacher Association and the Mount St. Joseph Academy school board, on both of which he served as president for a time. Later in life, when many people his age were settling into retirement, he was called up during the first Gulf War to Bahrain to serve his country once again, after which he was awarded the Presidential Meritorious Service Medal. But one of his greatest honors came last April when his peers in the medical community awarded him the Physician of the Year Award. A better man could not have been recognized. Dr. Austin will be missed by family, friends and all those he touched with his healing hand.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are here today in this extraordinary session to discuss a challenge to Ohio's electors. It was gratifying to see the high level of interest in the election create such a large voter turnout. However, it was discouraging to hear of the problems that affected the election in many parts of the country, including Ohio. Representative Conyers, other House Democrats, and individuals across this country deserve our thanks for the important work they have done to document the issues that arose from the 2004 election. I would also like to thank Senator Boxer and Representative Tubbs Jones for their diligence in bringing this issue to the forefront. All voters deserve to get answers, and corrective actions, to the reported irregularities and flaws of the 2004 election. As my colleagues may know, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, is currently conducting a comprehensive investigation of many of the issues raised in the 2004 election. I am very supportive of this investigation, and believe that through a complete and full investigation by the GAO, answers to the questions raised regarding the 2004 election will be obtained. The information the GAO obtains will allow the Congress to take appropriate action to address the problems uncovered. At a minimum, there are two changes to our election system that should be implemented by the Congress: requiring a paper trail for electronic voting machines and creating a national standard for provisional ballots. I will work with my colleagues in the Congress to enact these important reforms. We must work to maintain, and indeed improve, the confidence in and integrity of the election process. I am under no illusion that the actions taken on this challenge will change the outcome of the election. Senator Kerry has conceded the election. The events of today will not change this result, and I fear they will only further polarize our political landscape. The solutions to the irregularities of the election will not be found or enacted in this 2-hour process today. They will come from a complete investigation, like the on-going GAO one. Because I believe that contesting the slate of Ohio electors is not the way to achieve the needed reforms of the election system, I will vote against this challenge today. However, I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will be vigorously pursuing reforms of the election system to enact much needed improvements in the system. We have to make sure our elections are a solid reflection of the voters' intent. Given the resources of our great Nation, there is no reason why we should not be able to achieve this goal.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as the 108th Congress comes to a close, the House and the Senate are considering a significant legislative initiative, the Individuals with Disabilities Education, UDEA, Improvement Act. The purpose of the IDEA Improvement Act is to reauthorize the law that was enacted 29 years ago, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. That law, now known as IDEA, was based upon a series of court decisions in the early 1970s that found that children with disabilities were no different than other children and were, and still are, entitled to a free and appropriate education. I was one of the original authors of the 1975 law. A key provision of that law was the inclusion of language that committed the federal government to pay 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for each disabled child's education. Unfortunately, this is a commitment that has yet to be met. This year, my own state of Vermont had to spend $22 million in state funds to make up the shortfall from the Federal Government. I do not believe the bill before us, the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004, will provide the Federal funding to sufficiently accommodate all children with disabilities. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the original IDEA law, it is unconscionable that we, the Congress, will have once again failed to fulfill our commitment to pay the 40 percent share we promised almost three decades ago. In fact, as of today, we are not even halfway there. I voted against the Senate version of this bill earlier this year, primarily because of the funding issue, and I am opposed to the passage of the House-Senate IDEA Improvement Act conference report. In addition to the funding problem, I have serious concerns about two other provisions. The IDEA Improvement Act aligns itself with the No Child Left Behind standard for teacher quality. Unfortunately, the definition here is as flawed as it is in the NCLB Act. I had hoped the bill would recognize the balance between providing children with quality instruction and the difficulties in recruiting and retaining quality teachers. In Vermont today, more than one-fifth of special educator positions are not filled by qualified personnel. I believe that this bill will make that statistic worse, not better. Another issue that is troubling to me is the diversion of IDEA funds to other education programs. This bill allows school districts to reduce local spending equal to 50 percent of all new federal IDEA funds, from fiscal year 2005 forward, and use them for other educational purposes. This flexibility is available if school districts are in compliance with IDEA. This means that in a few years, the vast majority of school districts in the country will be able to shift billions of dollars that had been spent on special education to other areas. I have been fighting for years to increase the amount of money available for special education, and this provision risks derailing the progress that we have made. I am gravely concerned about this provision and its impact. School districts that are underfunded by No Child Left Behind will be tempted to fix that problem by cutting corners in IDEA and using that money for other programs. This sets a terrible example for future education legislation. Although I oppose the final passage of this bill, several provisions improve upon current law. Most importantly, the bill maintains the constitutionally guaranteed rights of children with disabilities. The bill greatly improves the monitoring and enforcement procedures for compliance with the law. Previously, states not in compliance were not necessarily sanctioned. In fact, in many situations, the only mechanism for enforcing the law was moving forward with a lawsuit. This new legislation calls for increased federal oversight and provides more enforcement tools at the state level. Although I am opposing the passage of the IDEA Improvement Act, I would like to especially thank Senator Kennedy and his staff for their efforts during this process, especially Connie Garner, whose hard work is greatly appreciated. It is my hope that we will not wait until the next authorization to continue to work together to improve the IDEA program and the funding that is so desperately needed for all children with disabilities. Next year will mark 30 years of federal underfunding. When will we recognize that our children have waited long enough?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, H.R. 5163, the Norman Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act, will be considered by the Senate today. I support H.R. 5163 and look forward to its enactment into law. H.R. 5163 will realign the current Research and Special Programs Administration, creating two new entities; the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Research and Innovative Technologies Administration. Each new entity will be led by an Administrator. Section 2 of the bill provides a new Section 108 of Title 49, creating the new Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In 108(c), the bill creates the Administrator position, as follows: (c) Administrator.--The head of the Administration shall be the Administrator who shall be appointed by the President, by and with advice and consent of the Senate, and shall be an individual with professional experience in pipeline safety, hazardous materials safety, or other transportation safety . . . By spelling out qualifications for its new Administrator, Congress is seeking to enhance the prospects for success for the new Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The new Research and Innovative Technologies Administration is created by amending Section 112 of title 49, eliminating reference to the Research and Special Programs Administration and modifying its powers and duties. Aside from adding the position to the Executive Schedule Pay Rate, H.R. 5163 does not address the new Administrator, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration. As with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, success of the Research and Innovative Technologies Administration will rest to a significant degree on the effectiveness of its leadership. Its Administrator should be well qualified. He or she should be an individual with professional experience in transportation research, research management, research program development, education and training in transportation and transportation-related fields and in transferring technologies into real world applications. I hope that the President will apply these qualifications when selecting a candidate for Administrator, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Christopher Reeve. I was lucky to be able to call Christopher Reeve a friend. His passion for life and for improving the lives of all Americans serves an inspiration to all of us. He may have played the character of Superman in the movies, but he lived the role of a superman through his life. I consider myself quite fortunate that our paths crossed on many occasions, in Vermont, at his home in New York, and in the halls of Congress. Chris was an outspoken advocate for the arts. As the co-founder of the Congressional Arts Caucus and, for several years, the Chairman of the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Chris and I shared the belief that Federal support for the arts was critical. At a time when the NEA was under attack in 1995, I asked Chris to testify before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on the importance of the agency. His testimony brought attention to the issue, and highlighted the role that arts and education play in the lives of children. To this day, I believe that his testimony and advocacy helped preserve the agency through very difficult times. Later, I turned to Chris again for help, this time on the important issue of lifetime caps on health insurance policies. In 1996, as the Congress was writing new laws governing the portability and availability of health care coverage, Chris helped me gather support for a proposal to raise the lifetime caps of health insurance policies. Chris was an outspoken advocate in support of that proposal, and shared his own personal story concerning health insurance to raise awareness for the lifetime cap issue. His courage and leadership brought that issue to the forefront of the Congressional debate. His dedication to stem cell research was renowned. His testimony before the Congress and advocacy for the issue--once again--put a human face on the possibilities that could emerge from stem cell research for those with spinal cord injuries and other diseases and afflictions. Chris' commitment to bettering the lives of individuals with disabilities never ended. In 2000, Chris traveled to Burlington, VT, at my request to speak before a disability conference. It was his first visit back to Vermont since his accident. He called the disability movement the last great civil rights movement, saying the primary obstacle for the disabled is other people's fear. Chris said: Changing the public's perception of people with disabilities takes time. It's about them getting over their fear. Imagining that it could be them. And once they know that, once they can really sympathize, then you get change. And then America lives up to its full potential. And I think we're on that path. Thanks to Christopher Reeve countless Americans will live to their full potential. We will continue to work on his behalf on the issues he was so dedicated to. I send my deepest condolences to Chris' wife, Dana, and their entire family. They cared for Christopher with a love and kindness that was inspirational. Dana herself was an inspiration to all of us. She understood the devotion and greatness of Chris. She helped Chris live out his desire to help the disabled. I hope they are comforted with his memory, and the knowledge that their loss is shared by so many across this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about section 3116 of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report, S. 4200, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent this week. Section 3116 establishes new procedures for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in South Carolina and Idaho that resulted from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Department of Energy, DOE, facilities. As my colleagues will recall, 48 members of this body voted to remove these provisions during Senate floor consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization bill. Senators were concerned that the provisions in the Senate-passed bill would allow the Department of Energy to leave millions of gallons of high-level nuclear waste next to drinking water supplies in South Carolina. While these provisions have been modified in conference and some changes have been made in an effort to strengthen the language, I regret to say that loopholes still remain that cast serious doubt about whether the environment near these facilities will be protected. I want to be certain that this language does not preempt the ability of States in which these facilities are located to issue permits to protect the surface and drinking water near these DOE facilities. The new conference report language in section 3116 appears to protect the right of states to approve closure plans or issue permits for the closure of nuclear waste containing tanks. The opening lines of section 3116 specifically eliminates the ability of the Federal Government to regulate these tanks under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 or ``other laws that define classes of radioactive waste.'' This language is silent on state's authority, delegated to them by the federal government under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, to issue permits protecting surface water and drinking water. The conferees did not exempt the requirements of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. These laws and the regulations that implement them, which do contain lists of radioactive pollutants, are not overridden. It is my hope that these laws will be implemented the way the conferees intended, and States will continue to be allow to protect their citizens from exposure to radioactivity through the water they drink and our lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands. I am also concerned that nuclear waste greater than class C, and generally not suitable for near surface disposal, will remain onsite with limited oversight. Section 3116 allows these wastes to stay onsite pursuant to a plan developed by the DOE in consultation with the NRC. I would have preferred that NRC be explicitly required to follow current regulation regarding disposal of greater than class C waste. Section 3116 instead requires a new ``plan'' that has no particular requirements. Mr. President, radioactive waste remains environmentally harmful for an extremely long period of time. It had been my hope that we could have been more clear about the guidelines for its disposal. As a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, one of the Senate Committees with jurisdiction over the management of nuclear materials, I am deeply concerned with this provisions. It is unfortunate that it will soon be law. I am concerned that, in the future, with one small change in this legislation, several other States may find their water resources at risk. Indeed, if this waste sludge remains, the Savannah River site would continue to be among the most radioactively contaminated sites on the planet. It is my hope that the agencies responsible for implementing this section will do so responsibly, and I will be monitoring their actions.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this legislation reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 13 other Senators: the Junior Senator from Maine, Mrs. Collins, the Senior from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, the Senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee. Funding authorization for this critically important program technically expires at the end of fiscal year 2004. In a regular year, the fiscal year ends on September 30, a date that has already passed. Right now, our Government is operating under a temporary extension of the fiscal year 2004 budget that expires on November 20, 2004. Today, the Federal Government released money for the first quarter of 2005 at the old fiscal year 2004 funding levels. I know that the states are grateful to have this additional money in hand. We must do something now to ensure that this vital program is reauthorized at a higher funding level right away, so that we can provide America's low income families the extra help they need this winter to pay their home heating bills. Who knows now, when we will finish appropriations for fiscal year 2005? We may finish our appropriations legislation in December or January, and we seem headed down that path. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today sends the right message to concerned constituents already worried about about how they will afford to heat their homes in the face of reported higher home heating costs in the next few months. With this bill we say even if Congress continues to extend last fiscal year's appropriations level or pass a new one, the Senate will increase the amount of money that can be put toward the LIHEAP program. Fortunately, we know we have support in the Senate for the legislation my colleagues and I introduce today. On February 12, 2004, the Senate passed S. 1786 unanimously. S. 1786 is a bill to extend the Community Services Block Grant Act. Included in Title II, Section 202 of that bill is a provision that would provide an annual LIHEAP funding authorization of $3.4 billion in each of FY2004-FY2006 and at such sums as necessary through FY2010. This bill is identical to Section 202 of S. 1786. Given that it has moved unanimously in the past, it is my hope that the bill I introduce today can pass quickly and become law. Why is this bill important, Mr. President? First, authorizing LIHEAP at a higher funding level would mean that a subsequent appropriations bill could add more funds to LIHEAP for this winter's heating season. All of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation for LIHEAP has been released, a total of $1.7 billion in regular funds and $99 million in contingency funds, and we've funded the first quarter of 2005 at that same funding level. Even if we wanted to add more money for LIHEAP this winter, Mr. President, Congress is running close to the total authorized limit for the program. Under current law, Congress can only give can only give LIHEAP up to $600 million in contingency funds, and $2 billion in annual regular funding. We are about to head into what is likely to be a cold winter with high fuel cost having nearly hit our credit limit in the amount we can spend on the LIHEAP program. That is wrong. It is poor financial planning and it does a grave injustice to the families that are counting on us, especially when we know fuel costs are going to be high this winter. We should make certain that we can give the LIHEAP program the money it needs, and do so now. Second, this bill is important our constituents face an uncertain and frightening future with respect to energy costs. We should not continue to fund LIHEAP at last year's level when we know that costs are increasing. In Vermont, my state's fuel assistance programs are now receiving calls from constituents on fixed incomes that have fallen behind on their fuel payments and are concerned about making ends meet. Vermont's first deadline for applications for fuel assistance was August 31, 2004, and payments are not expected to reach eligible applicants until November. In response to this first deadline, my state received 1,800 more applications than last year. Vermont's increase in assistance applications reflects the increased heating costs throughout the Northeast and Midwest. Almost daily, newspapers are reporting on the effect of higher energy costs for consumers in these regions this winter. The Energy Information Administration released its winter forecast this week. They forecast that heating costs will increase, and heating a home with oil in particular will go up by more than 28% compared to a year ago and will cost an average of more than $1,300. Compared to average heating costs from 1998 to 2000, expenditures this winter are expected to be 45 percent higher for heating oil. Vermont is not alone. The costs for all heating fuels will be greater than last year throughout New England and the Midwest. Natural gas will cost 11% more than it did last year, and propane will cost 17% more. This may be our last opportunity to act before the onset of cold weather in New England and the Midwest. Families and businesses who face a heating crisis this winter deserve our help. Again, I think my colleagues, and I urge swift passage of this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Invasive species are a problem in Lake Champlain in my home State of Vermont. The Lake Champlain ecosystem and regional economy have been seriously impacted already by invasive species, many of which dispersed to the lake from the Hudson River by way of the Champlain Canal. Eurasian Milfoil and Water chestnut have rendered much of southern Lake Champlain unusable for recreation and stripped value from waterfront properties. Hundreds of thousands of dollars each year are spent to control these plants. The sea lamprey has devastated our sport fishery, and large amounts of money are being spent on control, with only mixed results. These are just a few species. Once here it is nearly impossible to eliminate these invaders and even marginally controlling them is hugely expensive. Other invasive species have not yet reached Lake Champlain but have spread widely throughout the Hudson and/or Great lakes drainages. We know they are coming and must act now to keep them out. These include fish like the Asian carp, Eurasian ruff, round goby, alewife and tench. Any one of these could change the Lake Champlain ecosystem in catastrophic ways, and each is moving toward the basin. Invertebrate species such as the spiny waterflea and fish hook flea, as well as aquatic plants are also of concern. Because of the success of the dispersal barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, we are looking for a similar barrier for the Lake Champlain Canal to keep more invasive species out of Lake Champlain. A barrier will also protect the Hudson River drainage from invasive species that may arrive first from the north, like a particularly damaging fish, the tench. We must move quickly to complete design, and to construct a dispersal barrier in the Lake Champlain Canal. Time is of essence.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Linda Crnic, of Denver, CO, who passed away unexpectedly on September 10, 2004. Dr. Crnic was a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and director of the Colorado Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability Research Center. She was also an inspiration to thousands of families across the Nation for her internationally recognized research on Down syndrome and Fragile X. Down syndrome and Fragile X are the two leading genetic disorders causing mental retardation. Fragile X is an inherited disorder caused by a defect in one gene on the X chromosome. It is also the most common known cause of Autism. While I did not know Linda personally, many individuals have reached out to me in recent weeks with stories and tributes about the impact Linda made as a mother, as a colleague, as a friend, and through her research. Dr. Crnic's research helped individuals with Down syndrome and Fragile X become increasingly integrated into society and live fuller and more active lives. Through the efforts and outreach of professionals like Linda Crnic, all of us benefit as research about these disorders have also led to new medical insights and treatments. According to those families, whose lives she touched so profoundly, one cannot begin to describe the high regard and affection in which Dr. Crnic was held. She was a researcher to whom parents of children with Fragile X and Down syndrome could always go to with their concerns, regardless of whether or not their concerns were related to Dr. Crnic's area of research. She listened and responded. This loss, for the Fragile X and Down syndrome communities is incalculable. I send my deepest condolences to Linda Crnic's family. I hope they are comforted with her memory and knowledge that their loss is shared by so many in her community and across this nation. I ask that the following news story about the life of Linda Crnic from the Rocky Mountain News be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we are about to enact S. 1134, the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2004. This bipartisan bill, which I helped craft, will strengthen the agency's ability to assist economically distressed communities in Vermont and across the Nation by providing approximately $1.3 billion in economic development grants over the next 5 years. Since its establishment in 1965, the Economic Development Administration, EDA, has invested more than $18.4 billion in more than 52,000 projects in all 50 States and in U.S. territories. These EDA investments have been supplemented by approximately $8.3 billion in matching funds from investment partners and have leveraged approximately $90.6 billion in private sector investment. In total, these investments have created more than 2.9 million jobs and saved more than 830,000 jobs. In Vermont, for example, EDA funds have been used to develop a business incubator in Randolph and will soon be used to provide high- speed Internet access to the states most rural region of Caledonia, Essex, Orleans, Lamoille, Franklin, and Grand Isle Counties. My goal with this legislation has been to increase the investment of EDA dollars in Vermont, and 5 years from now I believe that will be demonstrated. The bill we are considering today is slightly altered from the one that we passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee last June. In an effort to speed eventual enactment into law, this substitute bill is not only supported by myself, Senator Inhofe, the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Bond and Reid, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment Committee's Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, but it is also supported by our House counterparts on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am pleased we were able to increase funding for planning in this bill. EDA has an important role to play in supporting planning at the local level. EDA has an important role as well to encourage the leveraging of federal funds. However, there is language in this bill that ensures that rural and urban economically distressed areas are not adversely impacted by internal EDA leveraging goals. Turning to brownfields, I am pleased this bill encourages EDA to promote the redevelopment of abandoned industrial facilities and brownfields. The economic and social benefits of brownfields redevelopment are well documented. For example, in June 2003, the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated that brownfields redevelopment could generate more than 575,000 additional jobs and up to $1.9 billion annually in new tax revenues for cities. In addition, according to EPA, every acre of reused brownfields preserves an estimated 4.5 acres of unused open space. Estimates of the number of brownfields sites nationwide range from 450,000 to as many as a million. This bill complements the 2002 Environmental Protection Agency brownfields cleanup law by encouraging EDA to make economic redevelopment of brownfields a priority. In other words, EPA's focus is to facilitate the environmental assessment and cleanup of abandoned sites, whereas EDA's role is to encourage the economic reuse of the property. I agree with EDA Administrator David Sampson, who in response to a question from the EPW Committee, wrote, ``cleanup activities are most appropriately handled by state and federal environmental regulatory agencies with the background and technical expertise to address complex remediation issues.'' As such, I expect that EDA would only fund redevelopment projects at sites that have been certified as ``clean'' by EPA or the State environmental agency. In the rare circumstance that an EDA grant recipient discovers minimal contamination as part of a redevelopment project, this bill would require any remediation activities be conducted in compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws and standards. EDA grantees should obtain the prior written approval of EPA or the State environmental agency to ensure that the remediation is protective of human health and the environment. Of course, EDA also must uphold the ``polluter pays'' principle by ensuring that Federal dollars are never given to the polluter to clean up contamination that they caused in the first place. Likewise, nothing in this bill in any way affects the liability of any party under Superfund, RCRA or any other federal or state law. The final brownfields-related aspect of the bill requires a General Auditing Office study of EDA's brownfield grants. This study should provide valuable data on the extent to which EDA brownfield redevelopment grants involve remediation activities, the environmental standards applied and the role of Federal, State and local environmental agencies and public participation in the cleanup process. It is my hope that such information will enable future Congresses to revisit these issues to ensure more explicitly that any remediation performed is truly incidental to the larger economic redevelopment project and that cleanups performed using federal dollars are protective of human health and the environment. In closing I praise the bipartisan member and staff effort that went into crafting this important bill. In particular, I acknowledge the work of Geoffrey Brown and Malcolm Woolf on my staff; Angie Giancarlo and Frank Fannon on Senator Inhofe's staff; David Montes on Senator Reid's staff; and Nick Karellas and Ellen Stein on Senator Bond's staff.