Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment adopted yesterday to the Department of Defense authorization bill that would strengthen Federal hate crime laws. This amendment would strengthen Federal hate crimes law in two important ways. First, it would remove the requirement that the victim be engaged in a federally protected activity when the crime occurs. This change will make it easier for hate crimes to be prosecuted and local officials to be assisted when the hate crime is based on race, religion, or national origin. Second, the current statute is expanded to cover hate crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation began to track hate crimes in 1991, the incidents of hate crimes based on sexual orientation have more than tripled. If the changes to the Federal hate crimes statute incorporated in this amendment are enacted, it will allow the Federal government to prosecute these crimes and assist local law enforcement officials in dealing with these violent hate crimes. Any crime hurts our society, but crimes motivated by hate are especially harmful. Many States, including my own State of Vermont, have already passed strong hate crimes laws, and I applaud them in this endeavor. An important principle of the amendment is that it allows for Federal prosecution of hate crimes without impeding the rights of States to prosecute these same crimes. The adoption of this amendment by the Senate is an important step forward in ensuring that the perpetrators of these harmful crimes are brought to justice. The American public knows that Congress should pass this legislation, and I call upon the conferees to retain this important provision during the conference on this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I express my serious concern with several pieces of so-called energy legislation that the House of Representatives is considering this week. This package of bills includes a comprehensive energy bill that differs both from the failed conference report on H.R. 6 and from the Senate energy bill that was introduced on February 12, 2004, and placed directly on the calendar. These bills are not the product of hearings or of bipartisan consensus between the House and the Senate. The comprehensive energy bill the House is considering is nearly identical to the energy bill conference report we have already defeated. The other bills are equally troubling. They trample States rights and they enact significant new taxpayer subsidies. Most importantly, they are not the right energy policy for America. I have for many months now said that we should try to reach consensus on targeted pieces of energy legislation. We could pass legislation on issues such as the increased production of renewable motor fuels. We could enact fiscally responsible extensions of needed energy tax provisions, such as the wind energy tax credit. National electricity reliability standards are another area in which Senator Cantwell, Senator Feingold and I believe there could be agreement and we could pass a bill. I also believe there are a number of energy efficiency measures that could garner broad support. But, there should be no agreement on the poor environmental policy that is contained in these bills. The Senate should reject them if they are passed and sent over for consideration. The omnibus bill the House passed yesterday, H.R. 4503, is identical to the failed conference report on H.R. 6, except for the inclusion of two coal-related provisions that are in the pending Senate bill, S. 2095. As with the energy bill conference report, nearly a hundred sections of the bill are in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We were not consulted on any of these sections, the House has made no effort to fix these provisions, and I have repeatedly raised concerns about them on the Senate floor. The waiver of liability for MTBE producers is included in the House's bill. The Senate has repeatedly rejected this provision. The House bill unravels the ozone designation process in the Clean Air Act by delaying compliance with the national health-based air quality ozone standards until the air in the dirtiest city is cleaned up. The House insists on this leftover from the failed energy bill conference report, though changing cities' ozone compliance deadlines under the Clean Air Act doesn't increase our Nation's energy supplies. This bill also provides unprecedented relief for a single region of the country from application of the entire Clean Air Act, without a hearing. The House continues to insist that oil and gas exploration and production activities be exempted from the Clean Water Act stormwater program. The Clean Water Act requires permits for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. The amendment changes the act to provide a special exemption for oil and gas construction activities from stormwater pollution control requirements. The scope of the provision is extremely broad. Stormwater runoff typically contains pollutants such as oil and grease, chemicals, nutrients, metals, bacteria, and particulates. I have told colleagues this before, but EPA estimates that this change would exempt at least 30,000 small oil and gas sites from clean water requirements. In addition, every construction site in the oil and gas industry larger than 5 acres would be exempt as well. The large sites have held permits for 10 years or more. That is a terrible rollback of current law. I want Senators to imagine trying to explain to constituents why an oil drilling site that had to comply with the Clean Water Act for 10 years suddenly no longer needs to do so. The House is scheduled to act today on another bill, H.R. 4517, called the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. It gives the Department of Energy a lead role in environmental permitting decisions for refineries in a newly designated ``refinery revitalization'' zone. The Energy Department would get the ability to issue permits and make ``federal authorization decisions'' under our major environmental laws including: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and our national solid and hazardous waste laws, among others. The Energy Department would get to make environmental regulatory decisions and set compliance deadlines. This is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. Moreover, if a permit is denied , there would only be an appeal to the DOE Secretary and then judicial review in the D.C. Circuit Court. The EPA, which normally makes these decisions, has no role at all. In an effort to assure Members, there is a savings clause in the bill that is supposed to protect environmental laws. The bill includes language that contradicts the savings clause provisions. It states that if the best available pollution control technology is used at a facility then that facility is in compliance with all environmental permitting requirements. In addition, the role of states is not clear, particularly those with more stringent standards. While this bill proposes to increase our domestic refining capacity, it will not do so. In fact, it is drafted in a way that will likely reduce our supplies of gasoline and heating oil. The bill is supposed to restart idled refineries. It defines ``idle refineries'' as those that have shut down after June 1, 2004. Let me say that again for my colleagues, idle refineries are refineries that shut down after June 1, 2004. These are not refineries that have been mothballed and shut down for many years. These so-called idle refineries could be operating now and then shut down after enactment of the bill in order to game the system. The refineries would seek regulatory relief under a newer, inexperienced regulatory agency, and drive prices even higher by further constraining production. This is a tragic outcome, and certainly not one that expands our Nation's refining capacity. The House passed another bill yesterday, H.R. 4513, that exempts Federal agencies planning renewable energy projects from the National Environmental Policy Act. Federal agencies would no longer have to identify alternative project locations when they site a renewable energy project. They also would no longer have to examine alternatives to the project other than the actions they propose to take, or the option of doing nothing at all. Like the refinery bill, this bill has bad consequences. While the bill seeks to speed up renewable energy projects, it is really a way to trample over Federal environmental laws or State and local requirements. For example, a city's objections to a windmill or solar panels proposed for the top of a downtown federal building may not have to be resolved or alternatives considered, even if there are local scenic concerns or conflicts with zoning ordinances. In a regular NEPA process, discussion could resolve those concerns and produce a project that meets both Federal and local needs. We should be reaching agreement over the development of renewable energy, not creating conflicts. Also today, the House will take up H.R. 4545, the Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004, a bill that proposes to increase gasoline supplies by capping the number of so-called boutique fuel blends. This bill is not likely to have a beneficial effect in terms of reducing gasoline prices or increasing supplies, and appears designed to significantly worsen air quality. It allows EPA open-ended authority to waive cleaner-burning gasoline or diesel requirements indefinitely based on an undefined ``significant fuel supply disruption.'' In addition, EPA's determination appears not to be judicially reviewable, since the EPA Administrator need only deem a waiver ``necessary.'' Further there is no obligation to mitigate or make up for the excess air pollution that may occur over the waiver period. This bill also would bar any increase in the number of existing fuels and fuel additives. This would apply to any State-adopted ultra-low sulfur diesel, biodiesel or cleaner-burning gasoline programs, even though these programs do not affect gasoline prices or supply, and regardless of the fact that they may be needed to meet new, health- based air quality standards for ozone or fine particulate pollution. There are too many serious problems with these bills. The American people do not want us to act at the expense of environmental quality. We should be passing the pieces of the energy bill where we can reach agreement to do so, like those issues I outlined. We should not be rushing to pass legislation with such serious consequences. These are aggressive, overreaching bills, and are deeply flawed. I will oppose them, and other Senators should as well.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Since its adoption on June 17th, 1994, some 190 countries, including the United States, have become party to the convention. But for those looking for reasons to celebrate on this tenth anniversary, the news on desertification is not good at all. Indeed, the scope and pace of desertification have increased over the last two decades. In some parts of the world, the rate of desertification has doubled since the 1970s. By 2025, according to the United Nations, two-thirds of the arable land in Africa will be gone. Today, desertification threatens an astonishing one-third of the earth's land surface, directly affecting over 250 million people and threatening the livelihoods of some 1.2 billion more. Most of these people live in the world's poorest countries, caught in a vicious cycle of accelerating poverty and environmental degradation. Disruptions associated with climate change will likely make things worse. No one has to be reminded of how important fertile soil has been to human societies. But what can take centuries to form can be eroded or blown away in a matter of years. Loss of arable land directly undermines food security, displacing large numbers of people, creating new opportunities for sickness and disease, and, in some cases, contributing to famine. These sorts of pressures also work to exacerbate political instability in so-called weak states. Indeed, the links between desertification and security are increasingly apparent, as recognized by a recent NATO workshop on the issue. It is high time that policy makers in the United States take these linkages seriously. But it is also high time to recognize that desertification is fundamentally a humanitarian issue. We cannot remain indifferent while millions suffer from the effects of desertification. This was the impetus that drove the international community to negotiate and adopt a formal convention ten years ago. As we mark the tenth anniversary of the convention, we would do well to remember this and to acknowledge that we must redouble our efforts to combat this global environmental problem. Unfortunately, the United States has so far failed to play a leading role in the global effort to combat desertification. Although we finally became a party to the convention in 2000, we have never been especially active. I urge the current administration to step up and take a more active role in the convention. Without active participation and leadership by the United States, the effectiveness of international efforts to combat desertification will be limited at best.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in remembering our Nation's 40th President, Ronald Reagan, who passed away last weekend at his home in Bel-Air, CA. Of course, much has already been said, both in this Chamber and in the media, about the legend of his large life. His career in movies, his entry into politics and, of course, his two terms as President during a most tumultuous time have been well documented in the past several days. By all of these accounts, Ronald Reagan was a most admired politician, and while he and I had our policy differences, I have always shared in that admiration. Ronald Reagan held true to a strong conservative philosophy, which often made it hard for the two of us to find common ground. I was a Member of the House of Representatives during his 8 years as President, and you might say I was often a thorn in his side. We were on opposing sides when it came to many issues, most notably tax cuts and funding for the arts. But through all of our sometimes heated discussions and debates, it was so evident to me that President Reagan held a deep and abiding passion for his country, and an equally deep conviction for what he believed was right. As Americans take time this week to honor the life of President Reagan, it is that passion and conviction that they will remember and reflect upon. I believe, that those memories of our Nation's 40th President will inspire our future leaders. I extend my condolences to his wife Nancy, and to the entire Reagan family on the passing of President Ronald Reagan. May the memories of his life's accomplishments sustain them in their time of grief, and may the Nation's prayers bring them comfort.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Robert Clifford Uerz, an outstanding Vermonter and a national leader in the not-for-profit sector. As he prepares to retire from his position as president and CEO of the American Lung Association of Vermont, it is important to reflect on how much one person can accomplish in serving others. Robert ``Bob'' Uerz has had a distinguished career with the American Lung Association. He has served the organization for a quarter of a century working in various chapters in the States of New York, Connecticut, and most recently serving in Vermont. Bob has been on the forefront of the association's efforts in Vermont to carry forward its worthy goals of reducing the presence of lung disease and improving lung health in our communities through preventive measures. He was the primary force in establishing the American Lung Association's Asthma Clinical Research Center at the University of Vermont, an institution that has served Vermonters and others by advancing medical knowledge through research. I was indeed impressed with the national implications of this study and responded by securing $500,000 in Federal funds to further our understanding of ways to prevent and treat asthma. Bob has proven himself to be an effective educator and advocate in Vermont by striving to protect and improve the quality of indoor and outdoor air and by expanding services to residents with lung disease or those at risk of developing lung disease. His leadership was key to the establishment of the Better Breathers Support Group Network in Vermont. Bob has always brought a high level of integrity and dignity to every task. It has become impossible to separate the identity and good name of the American Lung Association of Vermont from the name of Robert Clifford Uerz. Bob's unwavering commitment toward improving the quality of life of Vermonters of all ages is a model for all who aspire to lead in the not-for-profit sector. The people of our Green Mountain State are truly indebted to him. He has our best wishes for the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I address the Senate on the matter of the need for continued U.S. investment in energy efficiency projects in other countries, as well as our own. I recently submitted my view on this matter to a publication of the Alliance to Save Energy, but I feel now, particularly in these times of high gasoline prices, that I should make a few remarks to the full Senate on this issue. Fluctuating energy prices and instability in the Middle East once again are prompting calls for energy independence for the United States. In our efforts to meet that goal, we cannot forget that the energy use of other countries directly effects both the supply and price of our energy resources here at home. Federal efforts to ensure freedom from fluctuations in energy prices have been advocated by every President, both Republican and Democrat, since 1973 and the infamous oil boycott. As Americans we count on energy to protect our security, to fuel our cars, to provide heat, air conditioning and light for our homes, to manufacture goods, and to transport supplies. In all of these needs, we, as consumers, pay the price for fluctuations in the global energy market. Our efforts to guarantee adequate energy supplies in the U.S. should prompt us to again take a hard look at energy efficiency not only here, but abroad. We are reminded that the international energy efficiency programs and projects run by our Federal Government protect and enhance the economies and standard of living of developing nations around the world. Given that we have a single integrated global petroleum market these efficiency programs directly benefit American consumers: by lessening demand for oil abroad, we are helping to loosen supply and hold down price pressures domestically. Quite simply, lowered oil demand in Madras helps truckers in Montpelier. Lowered oil use in Sao Paolo helps drivers in Santa Fe. A visitor to the capital of almost any developing country, be it Bangkok, Cairo, Manila, or Mexico City, will have a common experience. These places have already seen extraordinary increases in energy use. People who last saw these places 10 or 15 years ago are struck by the massive increase in air pollution from automobiles, trucks, and factories. As development takes hold and growth accelerates, energy use increases dramatically. But in many cases developing countries do not use energy efficiently. They often require two to four times more energy than industrial countries to produce the same output. This fuel consumption speeds up the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. In addition, fuel combustion is often dirty and incomplete, generating local pollution. U.S. Government-funded efforts energy-efficient programs that provide equipment and improved energy management practices can greatly reduce energy consumption. Over the last 10 to 15 years, the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. AID, launched a number of energy conservation projects aimed at energy use. These projects helped create an interest in energy efficiency, trained local engineers in energy management, and sponsored energy audits and demonstration investments. The projects were technically successful and had good economic rates of return, and the Alliance to Save Energy has been involved in several of these projects. In most cases, fuel savings paid for the cost of investments in a year to two. By reducing energy consumption, the measures also reduced pollution. One of the most successful examples of a national energy conservation program has been Brazil's National Electricity Conservation Program PROCEL. With support from U.S. AID, PROCEL has developed demonstration and education programs to foster energy efficiency savings and reduce the need for new construction of costly power plants. The country has developed energy efficiency standards, regulatory measures, and joint- venture projects that have become a model for the rest of Latin America. PROCEL's energy efficiency measures have resulted in direct savings of over 1200 gigawatt-hours per year. The need for programs such as these are overwhelming. According to the Energy Information Administration's most recent International Energy Outlook world energy consumption will rise by 54 percent from 2001 to 2025, driven by rising demand for power in China, India and other parts of the developing world. The report, issued on April 15, 2004, says oil will remain the dominant energy source worldwide through 2025, in Asian markets as well as in the United States. Combined, Asian and U.S. consumers will account for nearly 60 percent of the increase in world oil demand, which is projected to rise from 77 million barrels per day in 2001 to 121 million barrels per day in 2025. To meet that rising demand, the world's producers would have to increase daily production by more than 44 million barrels. And for electric power generation, coal dominates energy markets in China, India, and other developing Asian countries. EIA projects extensive increases in coal use in China and India. EIA also projects a near doubling of worldwide net electricity consumption by 2025, from 13,290 billion kilowatt hours to 23,072 billion kilowatt hours--again propelled by rising demand for electricity in the developing world. Unfortunately, despite these successes there is an alarming and decreasing trend in funding for energy efficiency programs at U.S. AID. During the past few years these programs have received a cut in funding--with the fiscal year 2004 request ($8 million) cut to 50 percent of the fiscal year 2001, $16 million funding. And the current proposal will not reverse this trend. In a century likely to contain many surprises and new challenges, the importance of U.S. energy security can only increase. In achieving energy security we must be mindful of a few things. We must assist developing countries in cultivating a responsible energy policy which supports sound economic and social development for the betterment of their population and the global environment. This mutually beneficial partnership will enhance our energy security while providing sorely needed revenues for health care, education, and infrastructure abroad. We also must remember that it takes continued federal investment to achieve this worthy goal.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, which on June 3rd will mark its 30-year anniversary of making affordable housing possible for Vermonters throughout the State. The Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA), which is celebrating this significant milestone in my home State, has throughout its history been a consistent leader in financing safe, decent, and affordable housing for low- and moderate-income Vermonters. This is no small feat given the shortage of affordable housing options throughout the State. The upcoming celebration gives us the opportunity to recognize the hard work and dedication of the leadership and staff of this agency. Executive Director Sarah Carpenter, Board of Commissioners' Chair Lisa Randall, and the 41 staff members and 7 commissioners work tirelessly to promote this agency's worthy goals. Over 24,000 Vermont families have directly benefited from the extraordinary assistance that VHFA has provided since its inception. VHFA is an agency that each and every Vermonter should be very proud of. I admire the work that VHFA does and frequently look to its staff for guidance regarding affordable housing matters in Vermont. I am delighted to stand before you today in recognition of this great agency, which exceeds the standards of excellence in so many ways. I offer VHFA my deepest congratulations for its 30 years of service to the people of Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I would like to discuss my disappointment with the failure to address an issue of critical importance to small businesses around the country--- the need to consider legislation temporarily raising the cap on the number of H-2B visas for this fiscal year. As many of my colleagues know after hearing from their constituents, the limit on the number of H-2B visas that could be issued this fiscal year was reached in early March. The H-2B cap was reached less than halfway through the current fiscal year and has caused critical problems around the country. This is especially true for those small businesses that rely on H-2B visas to completely fill their staffing needs over the summer months. A business may apply for a H-2B visa no sooner than 120 days before the individual is needed for employment, and the cap was reached as businesses were applying for their summer positions. I quickly heard from many Vermont businesses expressing their concerns about not being able to obtain these needed workers, and I was pleased to join Senator Kennedy in introducing the Save the Summer Act on March 29, 2004. This commonsense approach would raise the cap on H- 2B visas for this fiscal year by 40,000. This is a simple, straightforward, easy-to-understand-and-implement solution to this problem. I was pleased that the bill had bipartisan support when it was introduced and I was hopeful that it could be considered and passed quickly in the Senate. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case. The next day, on March 30, Senator Hatch introduced the Summer Operations and Services Relief and Reform Act that addressed the H-2B cap problem in a different manner. While I felt that this legislation addressed the problem in a less clear, more complicated way, I was very pleased that the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Hatch, and the Judiciary Committee's Immigration Subcommittee chairman, Senator Chambliss, recognized that there was a problem that had to be immediately addressed. In the normal legislative process, the next step should have been for the two sides to sit down and try to work through the differences between the bills and then quickly pass legislation to solve this problem. However, in this case, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were not in agreement on how to address the matter and began to negotiate among themselves. Unfortunately, they chose not to negotiate with the supporters of the Save the Summer Act until they had reached a consensus. Supposedly, more than a month after the bill was introduced, the Republicans finally reached an agreement amongst themselves. Although the majority reached a consensus, the business community and the Department of Homeland Security raised concerns about the Republican agreement. Thus, the Republicans have gone back to the drawing board and are once again negotiating amongst themselves. It is now the day before the Senate will take its break for the Memorial Day holiday. Many think of Memorial Day weekend as the unofficial beginning of summer. However, almost 2 months after legislation had been introduced, businesses around the country that were counting on the Congress to solve this problem still do not have an answer. Summer may have begun, but for many businesses, this summer season will not be something to celebrate. Senator Kennedy and I introduced a simple, easy solution to this problem on March 29 that would have allowed businesses to obtain the employees they desperately need for the summer, while giving the Congress the opportunity to address the long-term issues with the H2-B program. However, the Republican leadership will not allow the Senate to pass this legislation with an overwhelming vote. It has been almost 2 months since legislation was introduced, almost 3 months since the problem arose, and the Republicans are still debating the issue internally. The Senate should pass the Save the Summer Act immediately and help our Nation's small businesses.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the children of the Terrebonne Parish School System in Houma, LA, for writing to me about the dire effects of coastal erosion on their State. As part of the Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce's Save Our Soil Campaign, students from the Terrebonne Parish are writing letters to important State and Federal officials regarding the coastal land loss crisis in Louisiana. I truly appreciate their efforts and will do my part to support restoration in all of our Nation's coastal States. Coastal erosion is an urgent problem in the United States, costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year, including damage caused by storms and flooding, costs of erosion prevention, and expenses to dredge channels and harbors. In Louisiana alone, wetland loss could cost the Nation $36.6 billion. The Atlantic and Gulf coasts account for 45 percent of the U.S. coastline and they are home to 63 percent of the structures within 500 feet of the shoreline. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, the Nation's highest average erosion rates--up to 6 feet or more per year--occur along the Gulf of Mexico coastline, while the average erosion rate on the Atlantic coast is about 2 to 3 feet per year. A hurricane or other major storm can cause the coast to erode 100 feet or more in a single day. This rate of erosion is unacceptable. As the Terrebonne students know, wetlands and barrier islands provide natural protection from strong winds and hurricanes. Coastal zones are ecologically significant, providing safe and healthy habitat for an abundance of migratory birds and other wildlife. Our Nation's commercial and recreational fisheries are dependent on the many species of fish and other aquatic organisms that spawn and nest in this delicate web of marshes, wetlands, and estuaries. It is my sincere hope that through the Water Resources Development Act we will be able to conserve our remaining wetlands and restore many acres of precious coastline in Louisiana. I am grateful to the citizens of Terrebonne Parish for educating their children and fighting for the coastal restoration of Louisiana. We cannot stand to lose more of this previous natural resource.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it was many years ago the Senator from Massachusetts and I sat on the committee that designed this bill and passed it with all the expectations of it being fulfilled. But we still are a long ways from that. I support the bipartisan Harkin-Hagel amendment to S. 1248, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. This amendment would fully fund the Federal share of special education within 6 years, and finally meet the commitment that Congress made in 1975 when the original IDEA law was enacted. And although I am supporting this amendment, I must admit that my emotions are mixed. That is because we have been trying to accomplish this task for 29 years, and for 29 years we have failed. Quite simply, this should have been done a long time ago, and it pains me that we are still debating this issue. In 1975 I was a member of the House-Senate conference committee that authored the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This came after courts across this country ruled that State and Federal constitutions obliged schools to provide all children with a free and appropriate education. At that time, we in the Congress enacted a funding schedule for the Federal Government's share IDEA dollars. We calculated the cost of educating a disabled child to be about twice that of a non-disabled child. Based on that calculation, we committed the Federal Government to pay 40 percent of the national per- pupil expenditure for each disabled child's education. The schedule was for the Federal Government to pay 5 percent by 1978; 10 percent by 1979; 20 percent by 1980, 30 percent by 1981; and 40 percent by 1982. Currently, we are not even meeting the 1980 allocation of 20 percent. In fact, we are only providing states with 18.6 percent of the costs. This is a disgrace. And according to the Congressional Research Service, if we continue increasing funding at a rate of one billion dollars each year, we will never reach our goal of 40 percent set in 1975. Every dollar that the Federal Government fails to provide must be supplied by the State and local governments, which usually translates to higher property taxes. For communities that often struggle to pass school budgets, our failure to meet our promise may fuel resentment against families that already have enough to deal with in raising a child with special needs. In many small towns, such as those in Vermont, Iowa, and Nebraska, a single child with severe disabilities can have a significant impact on a school's budget. Yet even though the Federal Government has broken its promise year after year, great progress has been made and the States and local school districts deserve a lot of the credit for providing quality education to so many children. It is long overdue that we here in the Congress stand up to our responsibility to support all of our children, schools and communities. If 29 years has shown us anything, it is that our children do not benefit from hollow promises. The underlying bill is a solid piece of bipartisan legislation. There are some compromises on difficult issues such as how children are disciplined. But none of these issues addressed in the bill is as important as the subject of the amendment--fully funding IDEA and treating the annual funding increases as mandatory spending. Although I am supporting this amendment, I am deeply troubled that some may consider the funding mechanism being proposed here is a gimmick since the current $10 billion Federal allocation will remain as discretionary spending in the language before us. If we are successful in passing this amendment--and I hope we will be--the integrity of the amendment will only be upheld if the current $10 billion continues to be used only for IDEA. Further, that $10 billion must remain $10 billion and not be reduced and used for non-IDEA programming. As important as it is to vote for this amendment before us, it is equally important to commit to protecting the level of funding. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. The time is long overdue for fulfilling our promise. I have a question for the Senator from Iowa, the sponsor of the amendment. As we have discussed, the amendment before this body makes IDEA funding increases mandatory. The Senator from Iowa is a member of the Appropriations Committee and a ranking member of the subcommittee that overseas IDEA spending. Is it the understanding of the Senator from Iowa that the current discretionary allocation for IDEA, which is $10 billion, will continue to be dedicated only to IDEA programming and not reduced if this amendment is agreed to?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for that commitment and understanding. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to fully support this amendment, as modified. There are three significant modifications: First, a savings clause has been added to make clear that this amendment to the Tax Code has no impact on anyone's liability under the Superfund statute or any other Federal or State environmental law. Just because a tax- entity receives a tax certification signifying that it is not subject to the UBIT tax does not mean that it can avoid environmental liability. Second, the amendment has been modified to include a definition of ``substantially complete.'' An entity is eligible for a tax certification if its remedial actions at a brownfield site are complete or substantially complete. As originally drafted, the amendment did not include a definition of the key term ``substantially complete.'' This could have created a loophole that allowed entities to get a tax advantage without fully cleaning up a property. The modification we have made fixes this problem by borrowing EPA's definition of ``construction complete'' from the Superfund program to define this term. The third modification expands the public notice provision that was already in the amendment. It makes clear that not only must there be public notice, there must also be a meaningful opportunity for public comment. In addition, it makes clear the agency that makes the tax certification, whether EPA or a State agency, must respond to any significant public comments. In addition, the amendment has been carefully drafted to prevent abuse. For example, the taxpayer cannot be the party that caused the pollution and cannot be otherwise related to the polluter. In addition, all transactions, such as purchase and sale of the property, must be made at arms-length with parties unrelated to the taxpayer.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, We have all heard of the war on poverty, but I fear that 40 years after that war began, there is a new war afoot, a war on people in poverty. And the latest assault in this war threatens to leave thousands of people homeless. I am speaking about the Bush administration's plan to make substantial changes in the way our Government helps our poorest citizens secure housing. It is not hyperbole, in my view, to say that this change to the Section 8 voucher program could have disastrous effects. Section 8, administered by the department of Housing and Urban Development, helps nearly 2 million poor families and disabled citizens pay for housing with vouchers that have traditionally covered the full cost of their rent. But under the rule change, the reimbursements will no longer cover the full costs. As a result, housing authorities around the country will have to cut back on the number of vouchers they offer. For fiscal year 2005, the President's request shortchanges all housing vouchers now in use by $1.6 billion and could result in further cuts in the years ahead. This request would also remove key provisions of the Section 8 program that protect families with the lowest incomes, such as maintaining rent payments at 30 percent of a resident's income. In my home state of Vermont, there are 6,080 authorized vouchers available this year, but Vermont stands to lose 740 of these by next year with the rule change. That translates to a loss of more than $4 million in housing assistance in Vermont. And this scenario could indeed get worse: it is estimated that my state stands to lose up to 1, 770 housing vouchers by the year 2009. It is important to remind ourselves that we're not talking about just numbers here. These are families--real families--who will be at risk of not having a place to live. I recently read in the Washington Post that the Bush administration is making thee changes in an effort to ``constrain rapid growth in the program's spending.'' However, the increased demand for Section 8 housing arises because more people need help in our ailing economy. Every day in our country, working families are forced to turn to emergency shelters and food banks because they cannot afford the high cost of rent, child care and transportation. I believe this change in section 8 will add greatly to those numbers, while undermining our deeply held premise that work leads to self-sufficiency. Every day we hear the term ``working poor,'' but I'm afraid we do not take the time to fully understand its meaning. All of this prompts me to ask, once again, where are our nation's priorities? We continue to give out tax breaks to millionaires despite an ever-mounting deficit. We pour billions of dollars into fighting a war in Iraq for which there is no end in sight. And we will be spending billions more--there is another $25 billion request before us now--to rebuild that country while our own nation's poorest citizens cannot afford housing. If I may borrow a line from Rita Markley, the executive director of the largest homeless services program in my state, ``We've got to remind people that Homeland Security starts with a home.'' It is unfortunate that President Bush continues to find fault with a program that has demonstrated such success. As the Congress deliberates the fiscal year 2005 budget, I will continue to work to protect the Section 8 program. Forty years ago, when President Johnson declared war on poverty, he highlighted this nation's commitment ``to pursue victory over the most ancient of mankind's enemies.'' I fear that we have lost sight of the enemy, at the expense of those who needed this victory the most.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Edwin I. Colodny, a native son of Burlington, VT, as this year's recipient of the Burlington Business Association's Nate Harris Award. This award is conferred annually on an individual who exhibits the enthusiasm and dedication to maintain and improve the economic vitality of the Burlington region. Ed has supported the Burlington and greater Vermont community in so many ways that all Vermonters owe him a debt of gratitude. Ed was born in 1926 in Burlington and graduated from Burlington High School in 1944. He went on to receive an A.B. degree from the University of Rochester in 1948, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School in 1951. From 1975 to 1991, Ed was president and chief executive officer of US Airways, Inc. and was also president and chief executive officer of US Airways Group from 1978 to 1991, and chairman of the board from 1978 to 1992. More recently, Ed served as the interim president of the University of Vermont and interim president and chief executive officer of Fletcher Allen Health Care, Vermont's premiere medical treatment facility, during critical change periods at both institutions. Ed also served as chairman of the board of Comsat Corporation, a leading provider of global satellite and digital networking services, which merged into Lockheed Martin Corporation. I have admired the breadth and depth of Ed's business experience and his ability to collaborate with all partners involved in complex matters. His career-long dedication to fair and equitable treatment for workers and a desire to look for winning solutions to problems has set him apart from many of his peers. He understands the dynamics of a healthy business climate while maintaining a respect for the different needs and expertise of other participants. Ed works tirelessly for the well being of Vermont and its people. He now serves as chair of a Vermont committee to clean up Lake Champlain, one of Vermont's natural jewels. He continues to sit on numerous non- profit boards such as Vermont Law School, Shelburne Museum, Vermont Symphony Orchestra, Vermont Mozart Festival and he is of counsel to the law firm of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew in Burlington, VT. There are a very few people in this world who have given so much and asked so little in return. I hope Ed Colodny knows that his years of service have not gone unnoticed. This award shows how much he is appreciated, even though it is impossible for us to fully recognize his many contributions. I am so proud to stand here and tell you about such a great Vermonter. I wish him my deepest congratulations for an award he so greatly deserves.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, May 4 is World Asthma Day. Today people from across the globe will raise awareness of asthma and its impact on the lives of those millions of people who suffer from it. It should also be the day we in government recall our duty to safeguard the health of all Americans. Asthma is a lifetime disease. It is triggered by a variety of factors, including allergens, cigarette smoke, viral infections, foods, weather changes, and air pollution. Air passages become inflamed, making it difficult for sufferers to breathe, and sometimes resulting in critical emergency situations. It is dangerous, and it is costly. Our country spends around $3.2 billion every year just to treat asthmatic children. That is why I am particularly concerned that asthma is on the rise, and that polluting industries and cars are making matters worse. Seventeen million Americans suffer from asthma. It is the most common chronic health problem among our Nation's children, causing missed school days, restricted activity, and costly medical bills. According to the American Lung Association, 9,000 children and 42,000 adults in Washington, DC alone have asthma. Scientific research has increasingly linked air pollution from power plants and tailpipe exhaust to asthma. For example, researchers at the University of Southern California recently discovered that children living in high-ozone areas and participating in outdoor sports were three times more likely to develop asthma than less active kids in less polluted areas. The scientists explain that children who exercise outdoors take in more of the dirty air than other kids, leaving them more susceptible to airway damage. A new report by the Harvard Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School expands upon such research by linking global warming gases to increased incidence of allergies and asthma in the inner city. The report states that rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, due mainly to fossil fuel combustion, not only trap more heat, but they promote greater pollen and mold growth and associated asthma. On World Asthma Day, the air may not be clear, but the message is: We must immediately and dramatically reduce smog- and ozone-forming pollution and global warming gases in order to protect public health. The President's Clear Skies initiative won't do the job, neither will the EPA's new administrative rules that just postpone real pollution reduction for a decade or more. I urge the administration and the Congress to put aside partisan differences and polluters' special interests to protect the precious lives of those we represent. To live is to breathe. Until all Americans can breathe freely, our work is not yet done.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004 with my colleague Senator Sarbanes. We are joined by our colleagues, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Waxman, and others, who will be introducing the House companion bill today. I was horrified, as I imagine we all were, when it was first reported that lead levels in DC public water system was significantly higher than Federal guidelines, and had been so for at least two years. I asked myself the same thing thousands of DC residents were asking themselves--why weren't we told about this sooner. How much water did I drink? How much water did my children drink? What are the effects of lead in our blood stream? What are the long-term effects? What are we going to do about it? This is a pretty sad situation no matter where you live, but it is especially upsetting when you live in the Capital of the free world. Clearly, mistakes were made and changes are needed-- because if it can happen in Washington, DC or Boston, it can happen anywhere. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member, held a hearing on this issue last month, and we heard some pretty compelling testimony from DC residents, health experts, risk management professionals and government officials. But we are going to do more than just hold hearings; today we are introducing the Lead-Free Drinking Waste Act of 2004. Our bill will overhaul the Safe Drinking Water Act to strengthen the Federal rules governing lead testing and regulations in our public water systems to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--infants, children, pregnant women, and new moms--are not harmed by lead in the drinking water. Specifically, the bill requires the EPA to re-evaluate the current regulatory structure to figure out if it really provides the level of public health protection required. The bill calls on the EPA to establish a maximum contaminant level for lead at the tap, and if that is not practical given the presence of lead inside home plumbing systems, the bill requires EPA to re-evaluate the current action level for lead to ensure that vulnerable populations such as infants, children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers receive adequate protection. I look forward to working with EPA on this evaluation to determine which approach is most feasible and which provides the greatest level of public health protection. EPA has three choices--keep current standard, an ``action level'' at 15 parts per billion; lower the current action level below 15 parts per billion; or establish a ``maximum contaminant load.'' For example, it is clear that a maximum contaminant level, which is measured at the water treatment plant, would do little to protect people from lead-contaminated drinking water at their faucets. Our bill requires that standards be measured at the top. It is also clear that a low lead action level measured at the tap could provide more protection than a high MCL measured anywhere in the system if there were extremely strong and effective public notification procedures in place. Public notice is the key to success of any lead regulation-parents say to me, ``If only I had known, I could have protected my family.'' It is our job to be sure the public notice system we have in place gets people the information they need when they need it. The bill will require that information such as the number of homes tested, the lead levels found, the areas of the community in which they were located, and the disproportionate adverse health effects of lead on infants, be made public immediately upon detection of lead. In addition, the bill requires that, as part of routine testing conducted, any residents whose homes test high for lead receive notification within 14 days, and appropriate medical referrals. Finally, we don't want the day of an exceedance to be the first time people have heard about lead in drinking water. The bill establishes a basic public education program to ensure that people have a basic understanding that lead may be present in drinking water and what the corrective actions might be even before their water system detects a problem. Right now, EPA can't say if we have a national problem or not. We need one-time nationwide testing for lead in drinking water at all water systems to determine if DC is an isolated case or if there are other ``sleeping giants'' out there. The bill requires increased water testing and lead remediation in schools and day-care centers nationwide. This provision exists in law today, but it was affected by previous litigation. This bill corrects the problem by requiring the Administrator to execute this program if States choose not to. It is wholly unacceptable to do anything less than provide a learning environment for our next generation that does not degrade their intellectual capacity. Our bill provides $150 million over five years for this program. And we strengthen existing requirements to ensure that ALL lead service lines will be replaced by a public water system at a rate of 10 percent per year until they are gone. It provides more Federal funding to upgrade water distribution systems to replace lead service lines. This is common sense--let's get rid of the lead in our distribution systems and get rid of the lead in our water. Our bill makes the water systems responsible for replacing lead service lines, including the privately-owned sections, once a system exceeds lead standards. Homeowners have the final say in whether their line is replaced. We provide $1 billion over five years for lead service line replacement. The EPA estimates that our Nation needs 265 billion dollars to maintain and improve its drinking water infrastructure over the next twenty years. If we don't address this, we will be facing more and more health and environmental issues as our Nation's water infrastructure degrades. Lead service lines are only one part of the picture. Leaded solder was banned in 1987. However, ``lead-free'' plumbing fixtures are currently allowed to have eight percent lead. Our bill bans leaded plumbing fixtures and components. It is time to get the lead out of our pipes, out of our water, out of our families and out of our lives. Safe drinking water is not a privilege; it is a right--whether you live in Washington, DC, or Washington State or Washington County, VT. We hope to move this bill this year. My Committee is scheduled to consider water infrastructure legislation later this month, and I think the ``Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004'' would be an important addition to that bill. I just want to say it has been an honor to work with Senator Sarbanes, Congresswoman Norton, and Congressman Waxman on this vitally important issue.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004 with my colleague Senator Sarbanes. We are joined by our colleagues, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Waxman, and others, who will be introducing the House companion bill today. I was horrified, as I imagine we all were, when it was first reported that lead levels in DC public water system was significantly higher than Federal guidelines, and had been so for at least two years. I asked myself the same thing thousands of DC residents were asking themselves--why weren't we told about this sooner. How much water did I drink? How much water did my children drink? What are the effects of lead in our blood stream? What are the long-term effects? What are we going to do about it? This is a pretty sad situation no matter where you live, but it is especially upsetting when you live in the Capital of the free world. Clearly, mistakes were made and changes are needed-- because if it can happen in Washington, DC or Boston, it can happen anywhere. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member, held a hearing on this issue last month, and we heard some pretty compelling testimony from DC residents, health experts, risk management professionals and government officials. But we are going to do more than just hold hearings; today we are introducing the Lead-Free Drinking Waste Act of 2004. Our bill will overhaul the Safe Drinking Water Act to strengthen the Federal rules governing lead testing and regulations in our public water systems to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--infants, children, pregnant women, and new moms--are not harmed by lead in the drinking water. Specifically, the bill requires the EPA to re-evaluate the current regulatory structure to figure out if it really provides the level of public health protection required. The bill calls on the EPA to establish a maximum contaminant level for lead at the tap, and if that is not practical given the presence of lead inside home plumbing systems, the bill requires EPA to re-evaluate the current action level for lead to ensure that vulnerable populations such as infants, children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers receive adequate protection. I look forward to working with EPA on this evaluation to determine which approach is most feasible and which provides the greatest level of public health protection. EPA has three choices--keep current standard, an ``action level'' at 15 parts per billion; lower the current action level below 15 parts per billion; or establish a ``maximum contaminant load.'' For example, it is clear that a maximum contaminant level, which is measured at the water treatment plant, would do little to protect people from lead-contaminated drinking water at their faucets. Our bill requires that standards be measured at the top. It is also clear that a low lead action level measured at the tap could provide more protection than a high MCL measured anywhere in the system if there were extremely strong and effective public notification procedures in place. Public notice is the key to success of any lead regulation-parents say to me, ``If only I had known, I could have protected my family.'' It is our job to be sure the public notice system we have in place gets people the information they need when they need it. The bill will require that information such as the number of homes tested, the lead levels found, the areas of the community in which they were located, and the disproportionate adverse health effects of lead on infants, be made public immediately upon detection of lead. In addition, the bill requires that, as part of routine testing conducted, any residents whose homes test high for lead receive notification within 14 days, and appropriate medical referrals. Finally, we don't want the day of an exceedance to be the first time people have heard about lead in drinking water. The bill establishes a basic public education program to ensure that people have a basic understanding that lead may be present in drinking water and what the corrective actions might be even before their water system detects a problem. Right now, EPA can't say if we have a national problem or not. We need one-time nationwide testing for lead in drinking water at all water systems to determine if DC is an isolated case or if there are other ``sleeping giants'' out there. The bill requires increased water testing and lead remediation in schools and day-care centers nationwide. This provision exists in law today, but it was affected by previous litigation. This bill corrects the problem by requiring the Administrator to execute this program if States choose not to. It is wholly unacceptable to do anything less than provide a learning environment for our next generation that does not degrade their intellectual capacity. Our bill provides $150 million over five years for this program. And we strengthen existing requirements to ensure that ALL lead service lines will be replaced by a public water system at a rate of 10 percent per year until they are gone. It provides more Federal funding to upgrade water distribution systems to replace lead service lines. This is common sense--let's get rid of the lead in our distribution systems and get rid of the lead in our water. Our bill makes the water systems responsible for replacing lead service lines, including the privately-owned sections, once a system exceeds lead standards. Homeowners have the final say in whether their line is replaced. We provide $1 billion over five years for lead service line replacement. The EPA estimates that our Nation needs 265 billion dollars to maintain and improve its drinking water infrastructure over the next twenty years. If we don't address this, we will be facing more and more health and environmental issues as our Nation's water infrastructure degrades. Lead service lines are only one part of the picture. Leaded solder was banned in 1987. However, ``lead-free'' plumbing fixtures are currently allowed to have eight percent lead. Our bill bans leaded plumbing fixtures and components. It is time to get the lead out of our pipes, out of our water, out of our families and out of our lives. Safe drinking water is not a privilege; it is a right--whether you live in Washington, DC, or Washington State or Washington County, VT. We hope to move this bill this year. My Committee is scheduled to consider water infrastructure legislation later this month, and I think the ``Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004'' would be an important addition to that bill. I just want to say it has been an honor to work with Senator Sarbanes, Congresswoman Norton, and Congressman Waxman on this vitally important issue.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I want to express my serious concern with the content of the amendment offered by Senator Domenici. This amendment differs even from the surprise energy bill that was introduced on February 12, 2004, and placed directly on the Senate's calendar. Senators should make no mistake, this legislation is not the product of bipartisan consensus in the Senate committees of jurisdiction. In most respects, this amendment is the energy bill conference report we have already defeated. And most importantly, it is not the right energy policy for America. I agree with Senator Daschle that we should try to reach consensus on targeted pieces of energy legislation. We could pass legislation on issues such as renewable motor fuels, as Senator Daschle has proposed with his amendment. We could enact fiscally responsible extensions of needed energy tax provisions, such as the wind energy tax credit. National electricity reliability standards are another area in which Senator Cantwell and I believe there could be agreement and we could pass a bill. But there should be no agreement on the poor environment policy that is contained in this amendment. The Senate should reject this amendment, and oppose cloture. As with the energy bill conference report, nearly a hundred sections of this amendment are in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We were not consulted on any of these provisions, and I have repeatedly raised concerns about them on the Senate floor. This amendment does not represent the kind of forward-looking balanced energy policy that our Nation needs. The Senate should be able to ensure that our constituents have reliable electric power without polluting their drinking water. Our constituents deserve cleaner gasoline without requiring them to breath dirtier air. We should be able to promote renewable energy without waiving environmental laws. This amendment seriously harms the environment. The supporters have said that a waiver of liability for MTBE producers is not contained in this amendment. That does not make the motor fuels provisions good or workable public policy. Though we know MTBE is environmentally harmful, the amendment would allow this product to be used for 10 more years before we pull it off of the market. In addition, the amendment allows the President to overturn the MTBE ban prior to June 30, 2014, and continue its use indefinitely. The amendment unravels the ozone designation process in the Clean Air Act by delaying compliance with the national health-based air quality ozone standards until the air in the dirtiest city is cleaned up. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has ever considered this damaging provision. It is a leftover from the failed energy bill conference report. Changing cities' ozone compliance deadlines under the Clean Air Act doesn't increase our Nation's energy supplies. Exposing the public to continued levels of harmful dangerous air pollution emissions for far more time than allowed under existing law guarantees thousands of more asthma attacks, more hospital visits and more cases of respiratory distress, disease and illness. Recently, the EPA announced that there are record numbers of Americans, more than 165 million, who are breathing unhealthy air. The change is also unfair to States that have worked hard to achieve compliance with the Clean Air Act's health-based national standards. Why should areas that have done little or nothing to reduce emissions be given a free pass from halting local pollution? This amendment also provides unprecedented relief for a single region of the country from application of the entire Clean Air Act, without a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee or Senate consideration. The amendment continues the administration's drive to greater dependency on old technologies and fuel systems. This focus will increase greenhouse gas emissions and keep us on the wrong path that increases the risks from global warming and climate change. This amendment also continues to include language from the failed energy bill that exempts oil and gas exploration and production activities from the Clean Water Act stormwater program. The Clean Water Act requires permits for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. The amendment changes the Act to provide a special exemption for oil and gas construction activities from stormwater pollution control requirements. The scope of the provision is extremely broad. Stormwater runoff typically contains pollutants such as oil and grease, chemicals, nutrients, metals, bacteria, and particulates. I have told colleagues this before but EPA estimates that this change would exempt at least 30,000 small oil and gas sites from clean water requirements. In addition, every construction site in the oil and gas industry larger than 5 acres would be exempt as well. The large sites have held permits for 10 years or more. That is a terrible rollback of current law. I want Senators to imagine trying to explain to constituents why an oil drilling site that had to comply with the Clean Water Act for 10 years suddenly no longer needs to do so. So let's review the contents of this amendment. This amendment pollutes our surface and groundwater by exempting oil and gas development from provisions of the Clean Water Act. It pollutes our drinking water by allowing MTBE to seep into our public and private drinking water systems for 10 more years. The amendment pollutes our land by accelerating development of energy installations on public lands, including parks, wildlife refuges, and sensitive areas. And this amendment pollutes our air in many different ways. It extends pollution compliance deadlines and continues to avoid serious progress in cleaning up our air. There are too many serious problems with this amendment. We should not invoke cloture on it. The American people do not want energy security at the expense of the environmental quality. We should be passing the pieces of the energy bill where we can reach agreement to do so, like those issues I outlined. We should not be rushing to pass legislation with such serious consequences. This is an aggressive, overreaching amendment, and it is deeply flawed. I will vote against cloture, and other Senators should as well.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I recognize Sister Janice Ryan, a native of Fairfield, as this year's recipient of the Kids On The Block Vermont Puppet's Choice Award winner. This award is conferred annually by Kids on the Block--Vermont, a theatrical troupe that performs with puppets to deliver messages of personal safety, diversity, and acceptance of disabilities. As an honoree, Sister Janice is being acknowledged for her outstanding contributions to children and families statewide. I have admired Sister Janice ever since I first met her. Her career- long dedication to education and to helping those who need it most has encompassed serving in many capacities, including teacher, professor, administrator, advocate, mentor and role model. Each one of these alone are worthy of praise in their own right. One of Sister Janice's first of many outstanding accomplishments was the development of the special education program at Trinity College, where she served as a professor, Chair of Education and President. She continued on that path of service in helping to pass groundbreaking legislation that ensured the educational rights of children with disabilities. Sister Janice's passion and commitment to the children of Vermont and the Nation is unsurpassed. From 1995 to 1999 Sister Janice served as Education Director on my staff. Her experience was invaluable. I am forever indebted to her for her service. All who know Sister Janice know how dedicated she has been her entire life in serving others. She now serves as the Deputy Director for the Vermont Department of Corrections. There are very few people in this world who have given so much and asked so little in return. I hope Sister Janice knows that her years of giving have not gone unnoticed. This award shows how much she is appreciated even though it is impossible for us to fully recognize her contributions. I am so proud to stand here and tell you about such a great Vermonter. I wish her my deepest congratulations for an award she so greatly deserves. Everyone who has the opportunity to benefit from Sister Janice's service is extremely lucky.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator's very eloquent and well-prepared speech of the problems that occurred prior to 9/11. We all understand and know how bad they were.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I rise to speak about an issue that has been with us for a long time and for which we have had responsibility and have done a pretty good job at making sure everything would turn out all right. I want to talk about clean air, the environment, and areas where we have made tremendous progress. As we mark Earth Day tomorrow, rather than celebrating the environmental legacy, I am afraid we are fighting harder than ever to protect our progress. Since the day he came into office, President Bush has worked to gut more than 34 years of hard work by weakening many of our Nation's standing environmental laws, some of which were signed into law by his father. Air pollution is causing 70,000 premature deaths a year in the United States. Yet this Bush administration has proposed one of the biggest rollbacks of the Clean Air Act in history. Science tells us more than 600,000 women and children are at risk from mercury contamination. Yet this Bush administration has proposed to violate a legal requirement to reduce mercury emissions from powerplants. As we approach another summer, 40 percent of the U.S. rivers and lakes remain too polluted for fishing or swimming. In spite of this fact this Bush administration has proposed fewer bodies of water to be protected by the Clean Air Act. Toxic waste sites continue to be added to the Superfund while the Bush administration continues to cut funding for the program and refuses to reauthorize the ``polluter pays'' law. The Earth continues to warm and this Bush administration refuses to act to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. This Bush administration has a growing credibility gap, maybe even a credibility chasm, on environmental policy. The President has lost the trust of the American people when it comes to the environment. As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I believe we have an obligation to maintain and enforce the environmental laws already on the books and also to strengthen them. Unfortunately, our President is moving us backward instead of leading us forward. I hope we can once again celebrate Earth Day by showing more respect for our environment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for illuminating, pointing out all of the problems created by this administration. As we go forward, the challenge we now have is to make sure no more occur. Many Members on both sides of the aisle are deeply concerned about what is happening to our environment on this Earth Day. We know that all Members have to continue to alert this Nation of what the policies are doing to this Nation.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to add that we have both witnessed all this. I don't know how the Senator feels, but I feel perhaps I have not done as much as I could have, as much as I would like to do. We have to work together to make sure this terrible onslaught of destroying our environmental laws stops. And I know the Senator joins me in that pledge. And that we will do what we can to not get weaker but hopefully get stronger.