Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise before you today to join my colleague, Senator Mikulski, in offering this amendment to increase the funds available for water infrastructure spending. Since assuming the chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2001, I have spent many hours in the committee and here on the Senate floor discussing the pressing need for investment in our Nation's water infrastructure. In the 107th Congress, the committee passed S. 1961, the Water Investment Act, which I introduced with Senators Graham, Crapo, and Smith of New Hampshire, which would have increased water infrastructure spending by $35 billion, providing $3.2 billion for clean water in the first year, and $2 billion for drinking water in the first year The Bush administration opposed the bill, stating, ``. . . the administration does not support the funding levels contained in S. 1961.'' In December 2002, Senators Sarbanes and Voinovich and I, along with 38 Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle, sent a letter to the President asking him to provide $3.2 billion for clean water spending, and $2 billion for drinking water spending. Instead, President Bush responded by proposing a 40 percent cut in water infrastructure spending to Congress in his fiscal year 2004 budget. In March 2003, I cosponsored an amendment with Senators Mikulski, Sarbanes, Graham and Crapo to increase the allocation for water infrastructure spending in the budget resolution to $3.2 billion for clean water, and $2 billion for drinking water. It was accepted by the Senate and dropped in conference with the House. I do appreciate the work that the Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee did to restore clean water infrastructure spending to $1.35 billion, up from the President's request of $800 million--a significant step in the right direction. The ironic thing about this issue, the actions we have taken over the last 2 years, and the lack of major progress is that there appears to be bipartisan consensus that water infrastructure spending has significant need, is critical to our Nation's water quality, leads to job growth, and enjoys broad support among the American people. First--the needs are substantial. The EPA's own estimates show a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional investments are not made. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the spending gap for clean water needs is estimated to be between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years, and the spending gap for drinking water needs at between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years. It is not solely the Federal Government's responsibility to fill this gap. However, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to provide a reasonable investment in water infrastructure, given the size of the anticipated needs. Second--repair of a quickly deteriorating water infrastructure is critical to our Nation's water quality. Our towns and cities, along with the Federal Government, have invested billions of dollars over the last 30 years to build the infrastructure to treat our wastewater and drinking water. It is with this infrastructure that the country has been able to return about 60 percent of our waters to swimming and fishing standards. Even with those investments, we continue to fail to fully protect our waters from pollution, with over 40 percent of our Nation's waters still impaired. Now, the progress we have made over the last 30 years stands on the brink of evaporation as the extensive water and wastewater infrastructure we have built nears the end of its useful life, and we are failing to reinvest Third, estimates show that for every billion dollars invested in water infrastructure spending, approximately 40,000 jobs would be created. We must take action to prevent our economy from faltering. We are proposing to invest $5.2 billion in the State revolving funds. The States will provide a 20-percent match of just over $1 billion. This could create over 200,000 jobs. Yet despite the apparent consensus that there are significant needs, that healthy water infrastructure is in need of repair, that investment will increase job growth, and that Americans support investing in water infrastructure, we fail to act. Why? I cannot answer that question. Just last month, the President recognized the importance of water infrastructure needs in Iraq with his request for an $87 billion supplemental spending package that provided about $4 billion for water infrastructure improvements. It is appalling to me that the President is willing to support water infrastructure investment overseas while failing to recognize that Americans have the same needs here at home. However, the fact that the President failed to recognize our water infrastructure needs, requested a 40-percent drop in water infrastructure spending, and sought emergency spending for water infrastructure in Iraq that was four times the amount he requested for domestic water infrastructure spending, does not justify the same failure by this Senate. The amendment that I offer today with Senator Milkulski provides a downpayment on our water infrastructure needs. It provides an additional $3 billion for domestic water infrastructure improvements. This increase is $1.3 billion less than the amount this Senate approved for Iraq less than 2 weeks ago. By voting aye on the amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland, each of you can take direct action to improve both the state of our Nation's waters and the state of our Nation's economy. Today could be the day that the Senate finally changes the course of water infrastructure spending and votes decisively to live up to our responsibility and improve the quality of our Nation's waters. The outcome is up to us. I urge you to support the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, hardly a day goes by without an announcement of new casualties in Iraq, a news story about the family of a fallen service member, or the profile of a heroic soldier learning to cope with the aftermath of wounds suffered in Iraq. While the conflict is Iraq prompts quick approval of the defense spending bills, there is less appreciation for mounting costs to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I was most distressed at last month's refusal by the White House to support the Senate's addition to the Iraq-Afghanistan emergency supplemental of $1.3 billion in funding for veterans' health care. Most Senators understand that military activities in Iraq are significantly increasing the burden on the VA, and supported the addition of $1.3 billion to the Iraq supplemental. Seeing that this amendment was poised for inclusion in the final bill, the White House sent notice to Congress that it would veto the entire package if money for the VA were included. Sadly, Congress gave in to administration pressure and removed this critical funding. I am pleased that the Senate leadership finally saw fit to bring the VA-HUD appropriations bill to the Senate floor this week. This critical legislation, setting funding levels for fiscal year 2004, which actually began 6 weeks ago, is long overdue. This legislation provides $62 billion for the Veterans Administration, $27 billion of which goes to the Veterans Health Administration, an increase of $3.9 billion over last year's spending level and $1.3 billion over the President's request. Because of budget constraints and the unwillingness of the administration to endorse additional funding for the VA, the Senate Appropriations Committee designated the additional $1.3 billion as emergency spending so as not to count against the annual spending caps. However, this also made the increase subject to the President's approval, and it risked meeting the same fate as other increases rejected by President Bush. I am very pleased that during debate on the VA-HUD appropriations bill, the managers successfully offered an amendment to remove the emergency designation and incorporate the $1.3 billion into the bill, thereby greatly increasing the chances that this money will actually get to veterans this year. It seems that a majority of Senators have been listening to the few of us who have been decrying the state of VA funding for some time, and they are now coming to understand that even these modest increases do not make up for the continual shortfall experienced by the VA in recent years. It's long past time that this trend be reversed. The Senate VA-HUD appropriations bill also supports the Rural Health Initiative, RHI, a successful examination of innovative methods of delivering health care to veterans in rural areas. The VA must become more adept at spreading its health care dollars further across rural America. I am encouraged that the RHI will help improve the VA's performance in this area. After making significant progress on this legislation, I was discouraged that the Senate leadership decided to pull this VA-HUD bill off the floor prior to its completion in order to begin a 30-hour discussion of the status of judicial nominations. While I agree that judicial nominations are important, I was most disappointed that a largely partisan political debate took precedence over the completion of much needed funding for veterans. I urge the leadership to quickly bring us back to the people's business--the work we were sent here to accomplish. I would like to mention another issue of concern to veterans that came before the Senate this week. For years I have been a primary promoter of concurrent receipt--the payment to disabled veterans of the full disability and retirement benefits to which they are entitled. For many years, disabled military retirees have been forced to choose between receiving their full retirement pay or their disability benefits. This injustice has finally been recognized by a majority of the Congress, in large part due to the unflagging commitment of Senator Harry Reid. In recent years, Congress has moved to partially restore these benefits. The fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization conference report contains legislation allowing combat disabled veterans with a disability greater than 10 percent to receive their full disability and retirement benefits. It also provides for a 10-year phase-in of full disability and retirement benefits for those with a noncombat related disability rating of over 50 percent. While I am pleased to see this important improvement in benefit payments, I am concerned that some might view this as the end of the road for this issue. I intend to work closely with Senator Reid to continue to press the administration and the Congress to fully fund concurrent receipt for all disabled veterans. This is a basic principle of fairness that is not rectified by halfway measures. I regret that, for a number of reasons, I was unable to support passage of the Defense authorization conference report, despite its progress on concurrent receipt. Unfortunately, the legislation included unacceptable environmental provisions. As a former Navy Officer and 30- year reservist. I understand the need for the best possible military training. As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works, EPW, Committee, I was quite concerned by a request from the Bush administration to exempt the Department of Defense, DoD, from five of our Nation's most important and effective environmental laws. After careful review by the EPW Committee, I was convinced that the waivers contained in current law are quite sufficient to provide flexibility for DoD if it needs greater leeway to conduct military readiness exercises. In an effort to forge a reasonable compromise between DoD's request and sound environmental policy, Senator Lautenberg and I authorzed as amendment to the defense authorization bill that was supported by a majority of Senators. While this amendment carefully balanced the Defense Department's need for training with the Interior Department's mandate to protect endangered species, it was dropped in conference with the House of Representatives. In its place, the conferees added language providing DoD with broad authority to sidestep the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, even dropping requirements that any waivers be related to military readiness. I cannot in good conscience support legislation that undermines such critical environmental legislation. Therefore, I had no choice but to vote against the defense authorization conference agreement in spite of its improvement on concurrent receipt. Mr. President, we have a long way to go before our veterans health system is fully funded and before veterans receive the full compensation they deserve for their years of service to the Nation. I hope that the daily stories of herosim coming out of Iraq will compel more Members of Congress to stand with the veterans and not to rest until justice is done.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for the good work they have done in crafting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Please do.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I say 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman and also Mr. Levin, the Senator from Michigan, for the good work they have done. I appreciate the hard work that goes into these issues which I will be discussing. This bill provides important support for the men and women of our Armed Forces who are subject to hostile attack while attempting to bring stability and democracy to the people of Iraq. While I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, I believe that this Defense authorization bill is very necessary. If I had my way I would have changed some of its provisions, but on balance the Senate negotiators have done a very admirable job of crafting an acceptable compromise on most of the defense issues. I am, however, quite displeased that the administration insisted on asking for language in this bill exempting the Department of Defense from provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. First of all, the Defense authorization bill is not the proper place to have this debate. Discussions about these landmark environmental laws ought to take place in the broader context in our environmental protection legislation. However we made a good effort at crafting compromise legislation in the Senate bill. I was quite distressed that the House conferees refused to go along with this reasonable approach. In the 1950s, I was a gunnery officer on the USS McNair, a destroyer that participated in operations off the coast of Lebanon and had participated in actions to train our men in the service. I retired from the Naval Reserves as a captain. I am a veteran, and I am also an environmentalist. The two are not mutually exclusive. I understand firsthand that to be effective in the field, our soldiers, marines, pilots, and sailors must have the best possible training. I also understand that our country has an invaluable natural environment that we must protect as best we can. As part of the 2004 Department of Defense authorization bill, the Department of Defense submitted the Range Readiness Preservation Initiative. The RPPI created broad statutory exemptions for ``training activities'' of the DOD from five environment and resource laws: the Clean Air Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Endangered Species Act; and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. All of these laws, with the exception of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member. The EPW Committee held hearings on this proposal, in this Congress and in the 107th Congress, and found that the provisions of this proposal were unnecessary because the DOD had authority for seeking exemptions from these laws for national security reasons under existing law. In particular, section 7-J of the ESA allows the law's requirements to be waived, at the request of the Secretary of Defense, for national security concerns. To date, no Secretary of Defense has ever needed to utilize this provision of the ESA. Despite this, the DOD authorization bill reported by the Armed Services Committee contained a provision amending the ESA to provide that an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan prepared by the Department of Defense could take the place of a critical habitat designation on DOD lands. The Endangered Species Act has dramatically protected the diversity of our Nation's natural environment. Many species, including the bald eagle, the symbol of the United States, simply might not be in existence today other than for the ESA. Each year, since 1999 the annual list of endangered plant and animal species has exceeded 1,200. The grizzly bear, eastern cougar, bighorn sheep, whooping crane, American crocodile, and five species of sea turtle are some of the more recognizable mammals, birds, and reptiles that are endangered but have been protected and need protection. The ESA protects these animals and their habitats, and the hundreds of other animal and plant species that are threatened or endangered across the 50 States. This past May, the Senate stood up for the ESA-- the Endangered Species Act--and changed the provision of the DOD authorization bill. We did that. We did our job. A majority of the Senate adopted an amendment to keep a balance between the needs of the Department of the Interior to protect species under the ESA and the Department of Defense's need to give our men and women in uniform the best and most realistic training possible. The amendment required the Secretary of the Interior to make a written determination that the management activities identified in the INPRM would effectively conserve the species within the lands covered by the plan, and the plan assured that adequate funding would be provided for the management activities. The day after that vote, the Senate overwhelmingly passed S. 1050, only to have its will overturned in this conference report. Supporters of the ESA exemption in this conference report will argue that the Pentagon's hands are tied when military training comes into contact with critical habitats of endangered species. This is not the case. As I stated earlier, exemptions exist under current law. In this conference report, the exemption of DOD from the critical habitat designations of the ESA will not allow for case-by- case decisions and will make it give the Pentagon a waiver from endangered species protections, even when more conservation-friendly options may exist. The ESA provision in this conference report provides no assurance that the INRMP will provide conservation benefits to species. There is no definition about the kind of benefit that needs to be included in the plan or a requirement that the benefit be in some way equal to a critical habitat designation. Critical habitat designations are intended to protect habitat, address habitat threats and pave the way for future recovery of the species. None of those requirements are contained in the word benefit. I can only hope that is how the Secretary of the Interior will define benefit in the written determinations required under this new language. In addition, this conference report weakens the protections for marine mammals. The conference report provides a weaker definition of ``harassment'' of marine mammals that is the trigger for needing a Marine Mammal Protection Act authorization from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service. This weaker provision is extended beyond military readiness to ``a scientific research activity conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government.'' These activities do not have to be necessary for military readiness. Also, the requirement under the MMPA that any takings of marine mammals be limited to ``small numbers'' of marine mammals, or limited to a ``specified geographical region'' where similar impacts are to be expected has been removed. Another weakening of protections for species. My reasons for concern over the degree of DOD sensitivity to environmental dangers has been heightened by my recent work on behalf of Marines and their families from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Thousands of retired and ex-Marines and their families were exposed to highly contaminated drinking water over 20 years ago for long periods. It is now coming to light that this contamination caused many birth defects and childhood cancers. The extent of this tragedy could have been significantly lessened if the DOD had been more sensitive to environmental concerns. Therefore, I think it is a mistake to allow the Department of Defense to regulate its own environmental activities. When an endangered species becomes extinct, it is lost forever. That is a very serious and eternal consequence of poor, shortsighted environmental policy. National security is more tightly tied to environmental security than many in the Pentagon would acknowledge. We cannot afford to try out a bad policy when the consequences are irrevocable. I am opposed to changing the present requirement that DOD be concerned with both our national security and our environmental health. Because of my deep concern over these provisions, I must vote against this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I will get back to the Senator from Virginia on that and provide him the information. I can't articulate it specifically right now, but I will get back to him with that information.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct. That protection was added.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will get back to you on that.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not support the passage of the Syrian Accountability Act. The situation in the Middle East is a delicate one. It calls for subtle, creative diplomacy as the United States seeks to support its troops in Iraq, promote the Arab-Israeli peace process, and combat terrorism. While I agree with the goals of the Syrian Accountability Act, I am concerned that this legislation will undermine our ability to achieve those goals. In particular, I am opposed to the act's provisions that would mandate the imposition of new sanctions against Syria. I believe that these provisions would tie this or any future administration's hands in a way that will make the conduct of our foreign policy more difficult. A number of sanctions already exist against Syria by virtue of its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In addition, the President already has the authority to impose many of the sanctions set forth in this act. If we are to promote peace in the region and move Syria in a more positive direction, the United States must pursue an approach that is more nuanced and flexible than what is called for in this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 250 outstanding Vermonters who served in the 10th Mountain Division during World War II. I want to commend the Vermont Ski Museum for recognizing the significant contributions of these exceptional men by inducting them into the Ski Hall of Fame. As a fellow veteran who grew up in the era of World War II, I remember President Roosevelt's call for volunteers. It came as no surprise that when the military asked for skiers, trappers, and woodsmen to serve in the 10th Division, many of those who responded to the call of duty were from our own Green Mountain State. For a young boy in Rutland, VT, these men were my heroes. The 10th Mountain Division distinguished itself in fighting on the island of Kiska in Alaska and in the mountains of Italy. Recently we have been reminded of the effectiveness of these soldiers on skis. At a time when modern weapons and sophisticated technology seemed to overshadow the 10th Division's skills, recent conflicts in Afghanistan and other parts of the world have shown us that much of war boils down to human fortitude and a single man against the elements. Modern warfare has not proven to be more effective than the 10th Mountain Division when it comes to fighting in these extreme elements over rugged terrain. We are coming back to basics, and hopefully military planners will never doubt the necessity of divisions with skills like the 10th as part of our national defense. After the war, many of the veterans of the 10th Mountain Division came home to leave their mark on the ski industry. Vermont was no exception, and the ski industry has flourished here due in part to the passion these individuals have for skiing. They are indeed members of the Greatest Generation and their selfless contributions are evident throughout our State. I applaud the Ski Museum for acknowledging your individual sacrifices, your defense of our country and your contributions to skiing. It is a privilege for me to join the many others in honoring each of you. You continue to be my heroes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I stand here to raise some questions and issues of importance. There are so many difficult problems that Americans must face every day. These include crowded roads, finding adequate and affordable health care, getting a good education for their children, and improving their economic situation. I believe our constituents want and should expect the Federal Government to do whatever is possible to minimize these burdens with minimal intrusion. I also believe that Americans want to trust that the government is working to protect them from involuntary risks or dangers that will affect their lives, like defective products, unfair trade practices, and corporate fraud. Or, perhaps one of the public's greatest expectations about such risks is that the Federal Government will effectively stop pollution that would shorten lives, put people in the hospital or otherwise harm their quality of life or their earning power. Not to speak of cancer or developmental damage that might occur to their families. It is my duty, as a Senator from Vermont and as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to see that the Federal Government meets the public's expectations. Sadly, it is my duty to say that in this matter the administration has grossly failed those expectations and has betrayed the public's trust. I am not here to simply be critical. I am here representing those people, those communities, those populations who are sufferring because this administration refuses to acknowledge that air pollution causes illness and death. Actually, maybe they do know this, but they're willing to look the other way at the misguided request of big polluters. There is a reason we have a Clean Air Act. To protect human health and the environment. I can not imagine any member of Congress or any elected or appointed official that would say that we don't need a Federal Clean Air Act. But this administration is getting close to that point. I want my colleagues to know that I will be vigilant in pointing out places where this administration is at war with the Clean Air Act. And they are numerous. I plan to work vigorously to defend the Clean Air Act throughout my tenure in this body. I will not bend on this. I will fight efforts to undermine the act in the energy bill, in appropriations bills, in any venue that members may look for an opportunity. Mr. President, 32,000 or more people are dying every year due to power plant pollution. This is not a new number. It was first reported in the year 2000 and is based on reliable, peer-reviewed science. That is a crisis by anyone's definition. It is a call to action. But, instead of taking urgent steps or really any steps at all to control that pollution, this administration has given the dirtiest, oldest power plants a permanent exemption from installing modern controls that would cut millions of tons of pollutants. Not only will this administration not force these power plants to cut pollution in the future, but they announced earlier this week that they would no longer penalize those power plants and refineries for violating pollution limits in the past. This reversal is stunning and unprecedented, to my knowledge. Just weeks ago, we were assured that the administration would continue to prosecute polluters who violated Clean Air rules in the past. Now they are saying let's just pretend nothing bad ever happened. That is like saying, ``Let's pretend that the thousands of lives shortened by increased pollution from those illegal activities don't matter.'' The combined effect of the change in rules and the evisceration of enforcement cripples the Clean Air Act. This Bush administration is trying to unilaterally reverse the great progress in air quality that we have made due to the bipartisan agreement in the amendments to the act passed in 1990. I hope and will be working to stop this reversal through the courts or by other actions. The so-called ``clear skies'' proposal that the Administration has advertised with taxpayer dollars is too little and too late. It puts off real reductions in smog and acid rain causing pollutants from power plants for many years beyond what the public's health demands. It puts them off beyond what the Clean Air Act could do right now if only the Administration had the guts to stand up to the polluters' lobbyists and use the act constructively. At the same time that the President's proposal defers any real and significant reductions in pollution, it immediately suspends or cuts back on the important parts of the Clean Air Act that work right now to protect local air quality from upwind sources and to push emissions control technology forward. By the agency's own analysis of clear skies in the year 2020, hundreds of coal-fired units representing tens of thousands of megawatts, will still be operating without modern pollution controls. This means that people downwind of those plants will continue to suffer in communities across the nation, in 20 or more states like Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, and on. This just does not make sense. The administration's proposal still leaves many many plants uncontrolled 18 years from now. It defies the imagination that we won't ask those power plants to use modern controls for a minimum of eighteen years. The technology is available now and it doesn't cost that much. And yet, this delay in the President's proposal and its suspension of parts of the current Clean Air Act, will result in more than 8,000 people downwind of those plants dying prematurely every year when compared to my bill, the Clean Power Act, or to a vigorous implementation of today's Clean Air Act. I have been prepared, as I have noted several times over the last 2 years, to work with the administration to work on compromise legislation. My offer has been met with deafening silence. That is unfortunate for all those whose lives will be shortened, for the additional acid rain that will fall, for the asthmatic children who will suffer, for the increase in global warming, for the smog-blocking scenic vistas, and for the new lakes and fish contaminated by mercury. But that silence is not unusual. I have come to expect that the administration will not answer straightforward questions or provide simple technical assistance. And I have come to expect that the administration will not honor the public's or Congress' right to obtain documents and information on vital environmental policy matters. So it was not a surprise to me that EPA has refused to honor its promise to analyze the impacts of controlling mercury emissions at various levels from powerplants. If they did a decent job, it would show that the Clear Skies proposal is weak and far less effective than today's control technology. Today's control technology--it is even worse than that. It is also not a surprise to hear rumors that EPA and the utilities are seeking another delay in the legal deadline to control mercury and other air toxics. As it is, this deadline is already many years later than required by the Clean Air Act.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. What is surprising is that anyone who has children would consider such a delay. Mercury, much like lead, can cause significant neurological and developmental damage to fetuses when a mother consumes normal quantities of fish. It can also increase the risk of heart, kidney and liver effects in adults. The National Academy of Sciences has documented these risks well. Let me repeat that. The National Academy of Sciences has documented these risks well. However, in case the mothers and fathers who are considering extending this deadline or proposing ineffectual rules, I have joined with 12 other Senators in sending a letter to the Office of Management and Budget and the EPA. The letter explains their legal and moral duties, in the event that they have been forgotten. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, my inescapable conclusion, unless newly confirmed Administrator Leavitt can change it, is that the Bush administration does not care about the burdens that polluters lay upon the public. Perhaps the administration does not care about the deathly ill senior citizens suffering from pollution-induced heart or lung disease, or the parents who are struggling to help their learning disabled or physically handicapped child cope with everyday life, or the 150 million Americans who are breathing unhealthy air. Whatever their reasons, this administration is making it harder to breathe, to see, and to trust. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, November 6, 2003. Hon. Joshua B. Bolten, Director, The Office of Management and Budget, Washington,

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl for their leadership in crafting the Senate's version of the 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill. I appreciate their willingness to work with me to include $2 million in funding for the Historic Barn Preservation Program. This program was authorized in the 2002 farm bill, but until now has not received any funding. Our Nation's aging barns are important symbols of our agricultural heritage, and we must see that they remain a part of our landscapes. This program was established to preserve barns that are in danger of falling beyond repair due to decades of deferred maintenance. To qualify, a barn must be at least 50 years old. Preservationists are especially concerned with the oldest barns, many are more than 200 years old and some date back as far as 1790. Before this program can be successfully implemented. Congress must give it adequate funding. My amendment, which would provide $2 million in funding for the barn preservation program, will address the growing demand for historic preservation in our rural communities by documenting and researching appropriate techniques and best practices for protecting these treasures. I am not alone in urging funding for the barn preservation program. Last June, I led a bipartisan group of 24 Senators who sent a letter to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies urging that $10 million be included for this program. The Historic Barn Preservation Program also enjoys support from the preservation community. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has endorsed this program as well as numerous State preservation groups from across the country. We all recognize that preservation of these barns will not only ensure their survival for generations to come, it will provide practical benefits to the farmers that own them and the communities and economies that surround them. Clearly, working structures such as these barns have as much to offer to our understanding of U.S. history as the birthplaces of our leaders or battlefields where our soldiers fought and died. These barns have served various functions, whether as military hospitals, refuges for slaves making their way along the Underground Railroad, local school buildings or temporary shelters for families moving west as our country's border expanded to the Pacific Coast. In my home State of Vermont, the State Historic Preservation Office currently administers a small grant program for barn preservation that has been funded by the Vermont Legislature since 1993. While this program has been very successful, applications continue to significantly outnumber the grants made through this program. For example, out of 60 annual requests, the program only has the resources to fund 15 to 20 of those requests. Federal funding through the new national Historic Barn Preservation Program will help address the growing backlog of requests for barn preservation grants in Vermont and across the country. Mr. President, I again thank the two managers of this bill and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 2130

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct. The compromise also directs the administration to report to Congress by June 30, 2004, on the outcome of such negotiations.

Mr. JEFFORDS. As do I.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I stand to applaud the efforts of Senators Lieberman and McCain for pushing forward with a sensible and modest plan to address the threat of global warming. I would prefer that we were debating a bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, but the chairman of the committee has made it clear that he will never act on such legislation. That is unfortunate, since the evidence presented to our committee of jurisdiction is more than sufficient to justify taking prudent actions now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are those who say that climate change is a hoax, a concoction of radical environmentalists and a liberal media. That is simply hogwash or maybe the whitehouse effect. Global warming has been documented by hundreds and hundreds of credible scientific studies, including many world class institutions such as the National Academy of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the International Panel on Climate Change. To ignore and dismiss the threat of climate change to the economy and the environment is like insisting the earth is flat. It flies in the face of reality. The Climate Stewardship Act uses the same type of efficient cap-and- trade system that Congress established in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions and acid rain. My bill, S.366, the Clean Power Act, uses that system to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants to 1990 levels. That carbon cap and the cap in the bill before the Senate would stimulate the development of domestic technologies, like gasification and renewables. That would allow our Nation to continue burning coal, but more efficiently, cleanly and safely and with fewer carbon emissions. Without some kind of carbon cap to drive technology, utilities and investors will continue turning away from coal and toward natural gas. Without clear action by Congress on this matter, utilities and investors fear the uncertain timing of the inevitable carbon controls that are coming. I will not go into great detail about the need to act now. Our committee's hearing record is replete with peer-reviewed scientific evidence that demonstrates that need and refutes the Senator from Oklahoma's statements. But, I would like to note that the average global temperature in September 2003 was the hottest on record, and 1998 and 2002 were the first and second hottest years on record. That should concern us all. It is urgent that we take action soon. The Senate's decision today will affect the atmosphere and climate for the next 100 years if not longer. Experts have advised us that we and the world must radically change the use of fossil fuels in the next 10 to 15 years or the consequences could be quite severe. The need for the Senate to move this bill is tremendous. The United States emits approximately 25 percent of the world's carbon pollution. We are responsible for approximately 40 percent of the carbon concentrations now in the atmosphere. We have a moral obligation and an economic opportunity in leading the development of technologies and systems that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation gives businesses and Government a great opportunity to promote solar, wind, fuel cells and other sustainable energy sources as ``the next high tech revolution'' to meet our growing energy needs. It can also stimulate rural communities by making carbon sequestration economically attractive. Twice now, in the energy bills, the Senate has passed resolutions asking the President to enter into negotiations with all nations to obtain a binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have been ignored. The administration has taken no action to accomplish such a treaty or adopted any policy that will result in real and tangible reductions. Senators should not take this vote lightly. This is the first time that the Senate will vote to control emissions that cause global warming. Senators can lead now and contribute to sustainable development and job creation or they can hide their heads in the sand and be blamed further for the climate change that is already occurring and for the chaos that warming is likely to bring. I urge Senators to support the Lieberman-McCain bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. No objection.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield the 7 minutes remaining from the time of the Senator from New Jersey to the Senator from California.