Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns with S. 3, the ``so-called'' Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Shortly before my election to Congress, the Supreme Court made its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade to constitutionally protect a woman's right to choose. During my time in Congress, there has been no other issue that has engendered more passion or debate than this decision. While I ardently support a woman's right to choose, I have spent my time in Congress trying to ensure that abortions are as rare as possible. We can reduce the number of abortions through strong support of Title X, encouraging adoption, educating on the use of emergency contraceptives, and requiring insurance policies to cover contraceptives. In that manner we can ensure that women control their own reproductive destiny. The ``so-called'' Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is one of many attempts to overtly or covertly undermine and overturn the constitutional right afforded women in Roe v. Wade. It is imperative that Congress not be the entity making a woman's decision on this most personal of issues. This is a decision to be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor and others she chooses to include. The bill we consider today will place the Federal Government in the middle of the most intimate of discussions between a woman and her physician. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss with my colleagues the constitutional deficiencies contained in this legislation. Let me start with the title of this legislation, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ask any doctor if they have ever performed a partial-birth abortion and the response is no such medical term exists. So what are we banning? For that answer we turn to the definition of a partial birth- abortion contained in the bill. What we find is a very broad--overly broad--definition that is strikingly similar to the over broad definition found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the Carhart decision. You will hear my colleagues say this definition is limited to late term abortions, or abortions performed during the third trimester or postviability. However, if you examine the definition contained in this legislation, its breadth would cover safe abortion procedures that are used in the second trimester or previability of the fetus. Why have my colleagues chosen to use a definition that is over broad? Enactment of this legislation, if upheld, would erode the Roe decision by banning an abortion procedure that is used previability of the fetus. Thus, this legislation can be clearly seen as an attempt to undermine the legal underpinnings of the Roe decision. Another critical constitutional deficiency in this legislation is the absence of a health exception for the mother. The original Roe decision, and most recently the Supreme Court Carhart decision, required that any ban on an abortion procedure have an exception for the health of the mother. The proponents of this legislation will point to the pages of findings contained in the legislation as to why it is unnecessary to have an exception for the health of the mother. There are two problems with this rationale, first the Supreme Court has shown an unwillingness to consider Congressional findings of fact in recent decisions, such as Morrison, VAWA, and Kimmel, ADEA. Second, during the debate on the Carhart decision, the Supreme Court had knowledge of these findings, yet still ruled that because the Nebraska statute did not have an explicit health exception the law was unconstitutional. So why do my colleagues seek to move this legislation forward even with these glaring constitutional deficiencies? I can reach no other conclusion, based on the facts, than it is an attempt to erode the constitutional protections provided to women in the Roe decision. Mark my words, this legislation is one step in the process of attempting to overturn the Roe decision, and I will fight that outcome every step of the way.

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 to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to a piece that appeared on the editorial pages of the Washington Post on Sunday. It was a letter of resignation from John Brady Kiesling, a career State Department diplomat who offered some very compelling thoughts about the state of our international relations. After two decades with the State Department, Mr. Kiesling left his job on March 7 because he no longer believed the President's policies reflected the interests of the American people. Mr. Kiesling wrote that in our pursuit of war with Iraq, the U.S. had squandered the legitimacy: that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Mr. Kiesling wrote: Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. But it was this thought that I found most compelling: When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security and justice for the planet? This central question raised by Mr. Kiesling resonates with many Americans who feel frustrated and confused by the way the Bush Administration is performing on the international stage: Why have we failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary? I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kiesling's full letter of resignation, as it appears in yesterday's Washington Post, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, my subject is different but it is similar in that it talks about loss of lives and possible threats, the apparent and real threats to the people in this country from a different angle but a much more serious one and one that is going to result in many more deaths. I wish to speak on the subject of the threat to lives in the United States of a different and more insidious nature, and in the long run much more costly in human lives as well as health conditions-- air pollution and the administration's failure to recognize this threat through adequate pollution controls. I rise today to draw Senators' attention to the administration's flawed plans on air pollution and global warming. I am pleased to see that the administration has finally revived an interest in dangerous public health and environmental threats like acid rain and smog. They have even acknowledged that climate change could have severe and damaging consequences. Unfortunately, the administration's solution seems to be little more than a public relations distraction from what is really going on: corporate regulatory relief. What Americans really need now is relief from air pollution, and swift and serious action to avert global warming. They have a right to breathe air that isn't contaminated by greed. They have a right to full and vigorous implementation of the Clean Air Act. Sadly, the administration has lost sight of these rights. The devastation caused by dirty air is staggering. As many as 60,000 premature deaths each year are linked to air pollution, according to an American Cancer Society study and researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. A study by the respected Abt Associates says that 30,000 of these deaths are due to power plant pollution alone. That is an enormous loss of human potential, and a huge cost to society. There is no good reason to allow such a tragedy to continue unfolding. This chart illustrates the magnitude of this terrible situation. More people are dying from power plant pollution every year than die from homicides or drunk driving accidents. With real reductions in air pollution, such as those in S. 366, the Clean Power Act of 2003, which I introduced almost 3 weeks ago with Senators Collins, Lieberman and 17 others, we can save two-thirds of those lives. This benefit is reflected on the right side of the chart. The Abt Associates report also says that power plants are responsible for the following statistics each year: 20,000 hospitalizations; 600,000 asthma attacks; 19,000 cases of chronic bronchitis; and 5 million lost work days due to illness. Fine particulate matter is a serious form of air pollution that poses an especially severe health threat. Fine particles result from the interaction of water vapor with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. Most of these pollutants come from power plants. These tiny particles reach easily into the deepest depths of the human lungs. A host of scientific studies have linked particulate matter with a barrage of health problems. I ask unanimous consent that a representative list of such studies be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, when these tiny particles get deep into the lungs, they can lead to premature death, as well as health problems like: heart and lung disease; aggravated asthma; acute respiratory symptoms; chronic bronchitis; decreased lung function; and even lung cancer. There is even evidence that this pollution causes an increased incidence of low birth rate and infant mortality. Sensitive populations like children, asthmatics, and the elderly are at particular risk of health damage. Power plant emissions of nitrogen oxides and emissions from mobile sources contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone as well. This is another serious threat that scientists increasingly believe to be a chronic health problem, not just one that poses acute risks. Recently, respected scientists from the University of Southern California School of Medicine, and elsewhere published an important asthma study. They found that children in communities with high average ozone levels who compete in three or more team sports have a three-to-four- times higher risk of developing asthma than non-athletic kids. They have three times the normal expectations of illness than nonathletic kids. This is because athletes get a higher dose of pollutants to the lung, and because they breathe rapidly and deeply. We should listen to these and other scientific findings, and take to heart the suffering that many Americans experience due to air pollution. Power plants are a major culprit. It is our duty as lawmakers to do something now to curb these dangerous emissions and protect public health. While the Clean Air Act has been successful in removing millions of tons of particulate-forming emissions from our air, it has not gone far enough, and these health problems remain. Plus, there are major signs that this administration is slowing down implementation and enforcement of the act. This delays its benefits and increases human health damage. Air pollution causes significant harm to our natural environment as well. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides--emitted mainly from fossil fuel combustion--eventually fall to earth as acid. Acid rain washes vital minerals out of the soil, weakens the health of trees, lowers the pH of water bodies, and leaches aluminum into lakes where fish slowly suffocate from the lack of oxygen. A stunning 41 percent of lakes in the Adirondacks are acidified. A 1996 EPA report admitted that the Acid Rain Program of the present Clean Air Act could only slow the rate of ecosystem damage that, despite this program, more lakes would die. Acid rain scientist Dr. Gene Likens has said: We still have a very major problem with acid rain. That is scientific fact. In that regard, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have not worked very well. An important new study by researchers at the University of Vermont confirms that the acid rain problem is far worse than previously thought. Tightening sulfur emissions further--combined with strict, new controls in nitrogen emissions--would help restore our forests, lakes, and streams. The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation knows what is required to ensure biological recovery from acid rain by mid-century in the northeastern U.S. They say we must reduce utility sulfur dioxide emissions by 80 percent beyond what is currently required in the year 2010. It is clearly time to act. Current air pollution levels are also hindering visibility at our majestic National Parks. Chronic air pollution continues to envelop the Great Smoky Mountains, Acadia National Park, Shenandoah, and other sites in a blanket of haze. This not only costs regions vital tourism dollars, but endangers the health of park visitors, plants, and wildlife. Air emissions of mercury cause severe health effects as well. Mercury is a potent nervous system toxic. After being emitted into the air, it falls into lakes and streams. Mercury then bioaccumulates in fish and animal tissue, taking on a highly toxic form. Eating contaminated fish can cause serious nervous system impairment, especially to a pregnant mother's developing fetus, or to a young child. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 12 women of childbearing age in the U.S. have mercury levels above those considered protective of newborns by the EPA. That means as many as 390,000 children are born each year at risk of developmental problems. We have such a widespread mercury contamination problem in our country that 41 States currently post fish consumption warnings. Power plants, especially coal-fired utilities, emit the bulk of uncontrolled mercury emissions in the U.S. Yet the technology exists today to save lives. As James Willis, Director of the UN Environment Programme 2003 Global Mercury Assessment, states: There are technologies available already which will reduce mercury emissions from power stations by about 80% . . . what we can do now is often cheap--and it can cut other pollutants as well. I have highlighted some of the ways in which air emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury--especially from power plants-- threaten the health and safety of millions of Americans and the natural environment. But I am afraid to say that Americans may face an even greater long-term threat from greenhouse gas pollution. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas emitted as a result of human activities. The National Academy of Sciences faults fossil fuel combustion with causing most of the global warming problem. In fact, fossil fuel-burning power plants are responsible for 37 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. made a commitment under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to adopt voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. But despite this goal, emissions from the power sector have grown steadily and are now 20 percent above those levels. Our world has already seen about one degree of warming in the last century. The NAS and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change generally agree that the Earth will warm another 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. This could cause significant, abrupt climate changes, as well as threaten our public health, the economic infrastructure, and many ecosystems. The President's own Climate Action Report says, ``the best scientific information indicates that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur.'' Global warming is expected to have wide-reaching and mostly negative impacts on human health. We are likely to see direct impacts like death and illness due to heat stress and extreme weather. We are also likely to see indirect impacts from worsened air pollution and allergens, and increases in the occurrence and transmission of diseases like malaria and, perhaps, West Nile Virus. We have already seen a dramatic number of heat-related deaths since the 1980s. A 1980 heat wave in the U.S. resulted in 1,700 deaths, while those in 1983 and 1988 killed around 500 people each. Also, we all remember the deadly heat wave of 1995 that killed 765 people in Chicago alone. That is what we are looking towards if we continue to allow the carbon to accumulate. These numbers are much too high, and they are only going to get higher if the climate models are right. Experts predict that in cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Los Angeles, heat- related deaths could increase 100 percent. According to EPA and others, sea-level rise from global warming will bring on another set of consequences. Sea level is predicted to rise by one foot in the next 20 to 50 years. In the next 100 years, a two-foot rise is most likely, and a four-foot rise is possible. To put this in perspective, the EPA says that simply raising existing bulkheads and sea walls along the Manhattan shoreline alone to help protect it from a one to three-foot rise would cost up to $140 million. According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a 20-inch sea level rise could have significant cumulative impacts on coastal property in the U.S. These impacts could range from about $20 billion to about $150 billion by the year 2100. The environmental impacts of sea level rise would be devastating as well. Nationwide, a two-foot rise in sea level could inundate 17 to 43 percent of U.S. wetlands, and could eliminate a total of 10,000 square miles of wet and dry land in our country. I do not want to see that happen. Because of global warming, our forests will see dramatic changes as well. A 3.6 degree Fahrenheit warming could shift many North American forest species 200 miles north. Given the likely time frame for this warming, these tree species would have to migrate about two miles every year to stay viable. This poses a grave threat to my State's maple syrup industry, since about half of the hardwood species like maple will disappear. I do not want to see this happen either. A recent article in the journal Nature shows there is strong new evidence of global warming impacts on animal and plant worlds. Researchers say that as many as 677 species are already reacting to global warming by adjusting their range northward in search of cooler temperatures, or breeding earlier in the spring in response to warmer temperatures. A recent study by the American Bird Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation reports that some birds like the Baltimore Oriole may completely disappear from their home States. The Nation's 63 million birdwatchers will likely be frustrated by the coming changes in bird habitat. Also, the EPA has predicted that even a modest warming would eliminate nearly 90 percent of Idaho habitat for the majestic grizzly bear, which will likely have impacts on Yellowstone tourism income. Even the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race is running into problems because of global warming. Unseasonably warm temperatures have meant that the race will have to take detours for the first time in its history. Much of the snow has melted. The Alaskan route is now marred by bare ground and open rivers. Alaska's global warming problems made the news last year as well. As you can see in this poster, a New York Times news story from June illustrated that in Alaska, climate change is a stark reality, not an abstraction. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Cities in Alaska are having to cope with mosquitoes where they once did not exist. Hunters are being trapped on break-away ice. Houses are sinking due to slouching and buckling permafrost. Mean temperatures in Alaska have risen by five degrees since the 1970s. That is an extremely rapid rate of change, and I am afraid Alaska is somewhat of a testing ground for what is yet to come around the globe. These are just some of the environmental and economic consequences of global warming that may affect our country and our people. My colleagues can imagine the potential harm that less developed economies will face. I have spoken now in some detail about the ways in which our serious air pollution and global warming problems threaten public and environmental health, as well as economic prosperity. I have shown how millions of people suffer the ill effects of particulate pollution and mercury contamination. I have explained how acid rain continues to strip our beautiful forests of vegetation, leach nutrients out of our once-rich soils, and suffocates many of our lakes and streams. It is time now to take a look at what our administration is doing to relieve Americans from these costly burdens. Over the last few months, I have joined my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to speak out in defense of a vital Clean Air Act program called New Source Review, or NSR. NSR plays a crucial role in ridding our air of some of industry's most harmful air emissions, and it results in hundreds of millions of dollars in health-related benefits. However, the administration has chosen to ignore public health concerns and side with industry. These new NSR rules will make it much easier for polluters to send even more poison into our air. The administration tells us not to worry about these so-called NSR ``reforms''--that any holes left in clean air protections will be patched up by another proposal that was reintroduced in Congress last week, called Clear Skies. I am afraid Clear Skies will not provide such a safety net. In fact, a look at the fine print shows that Clear Skies actually provides less protection--less protection--than existing law. More importantly, it will not do enough to address this country's already significant air pollution problem. Unlike the new NSR changes, which affect all major sources of air pollution, Clear Skies only addresses some of the air pollution coming from one source--powerplants. So purging broad NSR protections while promoting a narrower proposal doesn't make any sense. Plus, Clear Skies will eliminate important Clean Air Act programs that protect local air quality, not supplement them. For utilities, Clear Skies will strip the Clean Air Act of the Mercury Air Toxics Rule and the Regional Haze Rule. And, while the administration's new NSR rule could allow 50 percent of all sources to avoid environmental review, Clear Skies will give powerplants even greater exemptions. Clear Skies will also degrade the ability of States to pursue interstate air pollution problems, and will prevent evolution of tougher New Source Performance Standards. As you can see from this chart beside me, the true result of Clear Skies will be less protection and more pollution than business as usual. In the chart, blue, gray, and red bars represent the so-called Clear Skies reduction plan for sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions, respectively. But take a look at the yellow bars. These yellow bars represent where we would already be headed with full and faithful implementation of the present, existing Clean Air Act. We are not even doing that under this administration. In other words, the administration's plan allows more pollution. It is a serious weakening of current programs. In fact, Clear Skies will result in hundreds of thousands of tons more emissions than full implementation of these and other Clean Air Act programs. According to EPA's own estimates, by the year 2010--Clear Skies would allow 125 percent more sulfur dioxide, 60 percent more nitrogen oxides, and 420 percent--420 percent--more mercury pollution than enforcement of current law. Total carbon dioxide emissions would continue to grow by leaps and bounds, despite the administration's goal of reduced emission intensity. I ask my colleagues to be wary of the administration's proclamations about the benefits of Clear Skies. While they tout reductions of 70 percent for sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions, they are actually using outdated information to arrive at these numbers. Real reductions in 2010 from the year 2000 would be only 60 percent for SOX and NOX, and 46 percent for mercury. Clear Skies will also push compliance deadlines out further into the future than present law, by as much as 10 years. Compared to the Clean Air Act, emission reductions would occur 8 years later for nitrogen, 6 years later for sulfur, and 10 years later for mercury. This delay would result in thousands of additional asthma attacks, hospitalizations, and deaths. To be more specific, EPA's own data shows that full implementation of the Clean Air Act will result in approximately 200,000 avoided deaths from air pollution. The Administration's Clear Skies rollback, on the other hand, will allow 100,000 of those lives to end prematurely-- 100,000 lives prematurely. Approaches such as the Jeffords-Collins-Lieberman Clean Power Act are what we need to save these lives. Our bill would surpass the Clean Air Act in saving as many as 250,000 lives--150,000 more lives saved than the Bush Clear Skies plan. Our bill will also result in benefits of $100 billion more per year in health and visibility improvements than the Clear Skies plan. I ask unanimous consent that a table illustrating the differences between these three approaches be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, the choice seems easy to me. While the Clean Power Act would safeguard and surpass Clean Air Act emissions reductions, Clear Skies would be a ticket to pollute. If Clear Skies legislation becomes law, we will all pay the price in hazy parks, smoggy cities, increased acid rain, and more trips to the emergency room. These are costs we cannot afford. I hope this message reaches the American public. The public should be very concerned about this administration's efforts to free polluters from environmental regulation. Clear Skies may sound like a good thing, but it is a smokescreen. In addition, Clear Skies does nothing to address global warming-- nothing. As you can see from this chart, Clear Skies ignores our commitment under the U.N. Framework Convention to return to 1990 levels of carbon dioxide. At a time when we should be adopting real measures to reduce CO2 levels to around two billion tons, the administration is promoting a ``business as usual'' approach. This approach will result in around 3.5 billion tons of CO2. That is no way to protect the American economy or the world from climate change. The administration says we shouldn't worry, we should trust that their voluntary greenhouse gas reduction plan will help prevent climate change. I am not convinced. I am deeply concerned because I know that voluntary plans to date have not done enough to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from rising. The administration's newly announced proposal--the inappropriately named ``Climate Vision'' plan--is part of the President's goal to reduce emissions intensity by 18 percent during the next decade. Emissions intensity is a term to describe emissions per dollar of GDP. It may sound like a respectable goal to reduce intensity by 18 percent, however, the truth is, that this approach will not reduce actual emissions of greenhouse gases. Even if emissions decline per dollar, overall emissions will grow--grow--by 16 percent. We must not base our national strategy to prevent global warming and its harmful and costly impacts on a 16-percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Again, I find it very unfortunate that the administration appears to be promoting policies based on fuzzy math. I am confident the American public would rather see legislation such as the Clean Power Act passed. Our bipartisan bill would require reductions of CO2 by 21 percent, a return to our 1990 levels. The Business Council for Sustainable Energy supports our approach. The organization's president, Michael Marvin, says: These ideas will encourage the deployment of clean, efficient, economical and secure energy resources for our nation. Our clean power approach will reduce the risks of climate change. The Administration's voluntary plan will not. In fact, Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, has admitted to this failure. In a July 2002 Commerce Committee hearing, he confessed: Greenhouse gas emissions will rise under our approach, no question about that. Does this sound like an administration concerned about improving our air quality and protecting our global climate from irreparable harm? No. Or could this be an administration that puts the interests of polluters first? I urge my colleagues to look at the fine print in the President's proposal and ask questions. If you're very lucky, you might just get a helpful and honest response. Frankly, I doubt you will get a response. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the last Congress, I asked this administration, namely the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Department of Energy, to respond to straight-forward questions about their legislative proposals, their rulemaking proposals, and their testimony before our committee. These are hardly unusual inquiries. In some instances, I have yet to receive a reply. When I have received a reply, it has been either incomplete or inadequate, and without fail, quite late. Simply stated, the American public, through laws such as the Freedom of Information Act, and also through its elected officials, is entitled to know the basis of government decision-making. The Congress has a responsibility to oversee and understand the activities of the executive branch, particularly when it implements the laws we write. It is apparent through my experience and that of other Members I have consulted, that the American public is being kept in the dark by this administration on important changes to vital environmental and public health policies. The Clear Skies proposal dims even further their hopes and right to expect a cleaner and brighter future. I thank the Senate for allowing me this time. I want to point out we should not lose sight of the fact there are things that are costing thousands of lives in this country we could prevent that are not being looked at well enough to give us the security we need. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I too support this order, and I thank my colleagues on both the EPW Committee and Armed Services for working together on this request.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for many months now, the administration has shown its determination to wage war against Saddam Hussein. I am very concerned that the Bush administration's intense focus on Iraq has blinded it to the critical needs here at home. While the administration prepares for a war with sky-rocketing cost estimates now in the range of $100 billion or more, it pleads poverty when it comes to funding our domestic needs. While the administration fixates on Iraq, the economy teeters, the stock market tumbles, the terrorist threat at home persists, and schools are threatened with premature closings for lack of money. Last week, our Nation's governors met here in Washington and issued a troubling warning. They told us our States are hurting. They told us they do not have the money they need to do their jobs and serve the people of their States. They told us their situations would only worsen if the President were to enact his tax-cutting plans. They told us they would need more than $15 billion this year alone in emergency funds for schools and domestic security. And as the headline in the New York Times put it, ``Governors Get Sympathy From Bush, But No More Money.'' Sympathy will not pay our Nation's bills. We have the obligation to address the crisis in America's schools with the same urgency as the crises abroad. Our children deserve at least that much. We have fallen woefully short in our commitment to our students, our teachers and our parents. We have failed to meet a promise that we made to our States nearly three decades ago to provide our fair share of special education funding. And now, only 1 year after passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, we are hearing that States don't have the money they need to make that law work. Yet the administration continues to devote extraordinary resources to its campaign against Iraq, and to its pursuit of allies for that campaign. While critical education needs go unmet, the administration was able to cobble together the necessary funds to offer almost $30 billion dollars to enlist Turkish support for the war. I suspect untold billions are also being promised to other nations around the globe. The President apparently is confident that all of these expenses can be borne along with a significant tax cut. I sincerely question that logic. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq has been marked by brutality. He is an evil dictator with clearly evil intentions, and is a long-term threat to the United States and its allies in the Middle East. Yet despite the well-documented atrocities associated with his rule and his clear flouting of U.N. resolutions, there still is no evidence of an imminent threat to the United States that justifies the administration's march to war. Iraq is of obvious importance to the United States and the world because of its geographical location and its oil reserves. Much of the world depends upon fair access to Iraq's oil. We went to war a decade ago to throw Iraq out of Kuwait and restore Kuwait's right to control its oil. Similarly, control of Iraq's oil must be put in the hands of the Iraqi people. I praise the administration for abandoning its initial go-it-alone strategy toward Iraq. I congratulate the President for his willingness to work through the United Nations and for the results he and the U.N. have achieved since that decision. An increasingly robust inspection process is under way, U2 planes are flying over Iraq under U.N. supervision, illegal missiles are being destroyed by Iraq, and additional measures are under consideration to more aggressively seek out illegal Iraqi weapons and programs. The administration should continue to work with the U.N. to strengthen the inspection efforts and seek peaceful means for achieving the disarmament of Iraq. Instead, the administration appears bent on cutting this process short. The administration has displayed a troubling lack of focus in articulating a rationale for military action in Iraq. Initial discussion of ``regime change'' shifted for some time to talk of disarmament. However, recent comments from the White House now indicate that we are back to ``regime change.'' The administration's expectations for post-Saddam Iraq are equally troubling. I am worried that the administration nurtures a naive belief that there will be rapid transformation of the Middle East from an area in which autocratic governments and Islamist opposition forces vie for power to one in which democracy and Western ideals carry the day. Talk of installing an American as temporary administrator of Iraq is also very troubling. We should be sending the message to the Iraqi people that we plan to put them in control of their country. The American people are not interested in becoming Iraq's overlord. We should be clear that we do not plan to rule Iraq as an American protectorate. We need to be much more explicit in setting forth the goals and timetable for any post-war Western presence in Iraq. Intelligence assessments make clear that the greatest threat today to the United States is the threat posed by terrorist attacks. We know that the fight against terrorism and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction can only be waged successfully with a robust set of international institutions and relationships. The administration's push for war with Iraq undermines our relations with other countries and the strength of our international bodies at precisely the moment when they are most important to the United States. We must ensure that any action against Iraq does not jeopardize our counterterrorism and counterproliferation fights. President Bush has sought for many months to rally this Nation and the world community behind the notion that the threat from Iraq is imminent and that preemptive military action is required. He has not succeeded in making his case. With no clear evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq, and with no credible plan for postwar Iraq, we should be supporting the U.N. in its work on the ground to bring about Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. Going to the U.N. must not be viewed merely as a cynical, tactical move designed to justify and aid preparations for war. Instead, the United States owes it to the world community, and to the institutions it worked so hard to establish in the period since World War II, to make a sincere effort to work with the U.N. to resolve the threat posed by Iraq in a peaceful fashion. American Presidents have labored for many decades to construct relationships and international bodies capable of handling situations such as this. They, the American people, and our allies deserve a patient, balanced, and considered approach to the current situation. More importantly, the American people deserve an Administration that devotes the same degree of energy and concentration to the crises here at home. I think, on more careful inspection, the President will realize that the domestic crises are truly imminent, and that they actually pose more of a threat to America's long-term security than the situation today in Iraq. I urge the President to stop before he has irrevocably committed us to the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq, which will draw away the resources that are so badly needed here at home. It will take courage and true leadership, but I implore him to act in this regard before it is too late. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to direct my colleagues to a few of the more than 40 editorials or op-eds from around the Nation expressing concerns about Mr. Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit. Here are just a few of them. I ask unanimous consent that the following be printed in today's Record: the editorial of the Rutland Daily Herald of Vermont on February 24, 2003; the editorial of the Boston Globe on February 15, 2003; the recent editorial of the New York Times; and the op-ed in the Washington Post on February 14, 2003.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member for the work they have done. I can only agree wholeheartedly with the ranking member's comments about the problems this treaty has, although I also intend to vote for it. I came to the Senate in 1989. At that time, Vermont was a leader in the effort to reduce nuclear weapons. I, therefore, became very interested in what we could do to reduce the threat of nuclear war. In November 1990, I traveled with seven Members of Parliament from the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. We went to the capital of each of our countries. We worked as hard as we could to raise awareness of the dangers of nuclear war and discuss what could be done to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. In England, we spoke with people who were involved with nuclear issues. We had a very memorable time with the Speaker of the House of Lords and also the House of Commons and gained insight into the British perspective on these issues. We then traveled to Moscow on the evening Soviet President Gorbachev gave his annual economic speech. We were amazed when, following the speech, he spent a great deal of time with us discussing the nuclear issue. He stated that the Soviet Union would certainly welcome a prohibition on nuclear testing. At the end of that meeting, there was one light moment. I brought him a pint of maple syrup. I offered it to him and said that if he were to give a teaspoonful of this to someone, why, they would immediately seek peace. He responded: Do you have a liter? I said: No, but I will get you one. It was an interesting time. We flew from there to Washington and met with National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. This is an issue I have followed for many years. I agree with my predecessor, the ranking member, that this treaty is far from perfect. We are engaged in a global struggle to confront the terrorist threat and to curtail the dangers posed by the prospect of nuclear materials in the hands of so-called rogue nations. While I will vote for this treaty, I cannot help but feel that the Moscow Treaty represents a tragic waste of opportunity. Instead of capitalizing on the Russian desire to reach agreement on deep cuts in nuclear warheads and instead of seeking destruction of warheads to ensure that Russian nuclear materials never fall into the hands of America's enemies, the Bush administration's distaste for arms control agreements--indeed, for any sort of internationally binding agreement-- has prevented it from seizing the opportunity to make the American people more secure. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Moscow Treaty. It requires the United States and Russia to reduce their operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 to 2,200 warheads. In a small way, it will make the United States, Russia, and the world a safer place--a very small way. It also is consistent with the previous administration's recommendations in the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review. The shame of the Moscow Treaty is not in what it does, but in what it does not do. The treaty represents a lost opportunity. The Bush administration's scorn for arms control blinded it to a golden opportunity presented by negotiation of the Moscow Treaty to address bigger nonproliferation and counterterrorism concerns of the United States. The Bush administration came into this negotiation only reluctantly. It repeatedly declared its opposition to the negotiation of a legally binding treaty text, asserting that less formal agreements or statements would suffice. Press reports are replete with examples of conflict between the Pentagon, which opposed any limitations on its offensive nuclear weapons and wanted the flexibility to increase nuclear forces, and the State Department, which supported the negotiation of a legally binding agreement. In the end, the State Department got its legally binding agreement, and the Pentagon got an agreement that is notable not only for its brevity, but also for its lack of lasting impact. While the treaty calls for each side to ``reduce and limit'' its strategic nuclear warheads to within the 1,700 to 2,200 range, the United States made clear early in the negotiation that it would interpret this phrase to apply only to ``operationally deployed'' warheads. In other words, there is no obligation to destroy even a single warhead under the Moscow Treaty. Warheads can be removed from their delivery vehicles and stored close by and still count as a ``reduction'' under the treaty. The United States has made clear that it plans to dismantle some warheads, put some in deep storage, and store others as spares. The absence of any obligation to destroy warheads leads to one of the treaty's most striking anomalies. The deadline for the reduction of operationally deployed warheads to within the 1,700 to 2,200 range is December 31, 2012. Unless otherwise agreed, the treaty expires the very same day. So the reduction in operationally deployed warheads, which are the only reductions in strategic nuclear weapons required by the treaty, lasts for only 1 day. On January 1, 2013, each party will be free from Moscow Treaty constraints on deployment of its strategic nuclear warheads. Moreover, if either the United States or Russia decides at any time in the interim that it wants to redeploy its warheads, it need only provide 90 days notice of withdrawal, and it will be free to do so. On May 13, 2002, the President stated that he was ``pleased to announce that the United States and Russia have agreed to a treaty which will substantially reduce our nuclear arsenals to the agreed-upon range of 1,700 to 2,200 warheads. This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the cold war.'' This statement provides one more example of the President's rhetoric not matching reality. The treaty does not reduce our nuclear warhead arsenals to the range of the 1,700 to 2,200 warheads. Far from it. The White House refused to agree to such reductions. The treaty merely removes warheads from operational deployment. There is no reduction in nuclear arsenals. The legacy of the cold war lives on. It just sits a short distance from our missiles, bombers, and submarines rather than in a deployed posture. Faced with the opportunity to lock in reductions of Russian strategic nuclear warheads, the President let ideology get in the way of meaningful agreement. Despite well-publicized concerns over Russia's ability to control its nuclear materials, he passed on an opportunity to assist global efforts against proliferation and terrorist attack by helping Russia deal with its nuclear stockpiles. There are a host of additional steps that could have been taken in connection with the negotiation of the Moscow Treaty. The President could have acted upon Russian desires to make true reductions in our offensive strategic nuclear weapons. He refused, despite the fact that destruction of Russian nuclear warheads would have eliminated their vulnerability to theft or diversion to terrorists. The President could have agreed to Russian proposals for negotiation of a verification regime to track progress toward the 2012 limits on deployed warheads. He refused, despite the confidence it would have instilled in the reduction process. The President could have expanded the negotiation to cover tactical nuclear weapons. He refused, despite the fact that thousands of such weapons exist in Russia and the United States without any sort of monitoring or control by an arms control regime. Because of their small size and battlefield application, these weapons are extremely attractive to terrorist organizations, and relatively vulnerable. The United States is currently unable to determine the precise number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons, and therefore unable to determine the nature of Russian control over such weapons and whether some might already have been lost or stolen. The President also could have expanded the negotiation to cover the problem of multiple independently targeted warheads known as MIRVs. Refusal to do so by the President leaves the American people vulnerable to the loss of several sites from a single missile launch. Steps of this sort truly would have matched the President's rhetoric, and they would have made this world far safer for our children. The opportunities presented by the Moscow Treaty are now lost. Other opportunities exist, however, to work with Russia and others around the world to fight the proliferation of nuclear weapons, material, and knowledge. Such work is critical to our efforts to combat terrorism and to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and know-how to countries such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. It is my sincere hope that in the future the President will reconsider the narrow approach taken toward the Moscow Treaty, and to other agreements such as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The fight against terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons must be fought on several fronts. Half-hearted efforts like the Moscow Treaty will not meet the needs of the American people and the world.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator Snowe in introducing the ``National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003.'' The waters of the United States continue to face threats from aquatic invasive species. Invasive species take both an economic and an environmental toll. The United States and Canada are spending $14 million a year just to try to control sea lamprey, a species that has invaded Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes. The environmental costs are also staggering. Invasive species usually have high reproductive rates, disperse easily, and can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, making them very difficult to eradicate. They often lack predators in their new environment and out-compete native species for prey or breeding sites. The legislation we are introducing today will build on programs established over the last decade and focus much of our attention and resources on preventing invasive species from entering our aquatic ecosystems. This legislation establishes a mandatory ballast water management program for the entire country; makes federal funds and resources available for rapid response to the introduction of invasive species and for prevention, control and research. Increased funding and resources for dispersal barrier projects and research to prevent the interbasin transfer of organisms is of particular importance in my State of Vermont. We, along with New York, are home to one of this country's most beautiful lakes-- Lake Champlain. However, zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil, water chestnuts, and sea lamprey have invaded Lake Champlain and are having a devastating impact. Like most who visit Lake Champlain, these species want to call it home, but we cannot compromise the health of the lake. Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a dispersal barrier in the Lake Champlain Canal to control the dispersal of invasive species in the lake is another avenue toward preventing further destructive dispersal of these species. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee and in the Senate to move this important legislation forward.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator Snowe in introducing the ``National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003.'' The waters of the United States continue to face threats from aquatic invasive species. Invasive species take both an economic and an environmental toll. The United States and Canada are spending $14 million a year just to try to control sea lamprey, a species that has invaded Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes. The environmental costs are also staggering. Invasive species usually have high reproductive rates, disperse easily, and can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, making them very difficult to eradicate. They often lack predators in their new environment and out-compete native species for prey or breeding sites. The legislation we are introducing today will build on programs established over the last decade and focus much of our attention and resources on preventing invasive species from entering our aquatic ecosystems. This legislation establishes a mandatory ballast water management program for the entire country; makes federal funds and resources available for rapid response to the introduction of invasive species and for prevention, control and research. Increased funding and resources for dispersal barrier projects and research to prevent the interbasin transfer of organisms is of particular importance in my State of Vermont. We, along with New York, are home to one of this country's most beautiful lakes-- Lake Champlain. However, zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil, water chestnuts, and sea lamprey have invaded Lake Champlain and are having a devastating impact. Like most who visit Lake Champlain, these species want to call it home, but we cannot compromise the health of the lake. Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a dispersal barrier in the Lake Champlain Canal to control the dispersal of invasive species in the lake is another avenue toward preventing further destructive dispersal of these species. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee and in the Senate to move this important legislation forward.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Veidenheimer, a fellow on my staff, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the day.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Clean Power Act of 2003 along with 19 of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats. That is a fifth of the Senate on record supporting a measure which dramatically reduces emissions of four pollutants coming from power plants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury. These pollutants create or contribute to smog, soot, acid rain, mercury contamination and global warming. They cause death, disease, ecological degradation, birth defects, and increase the risk of abrupt and unwelcome climate changes. The nation has made some impressive strides in reducing air pollution since 1990. But there is a lot of unfinished business, a fact confirmed every day by more and ever better science. Power plants are still the nation's single largest source of air pollution, including greenhouse gases. They are responsible for 60 percent or more of national sulfur dioxide emissions, 25 percent of nitrogen oxides, 40 percent of carbon dioxide, and about 45 tons of mercury annually. Fine particulate matter coming from power plants, mainly through SOX and NOX emissions, is causing or contributing to the premature deaths of approximately 30,000 people. More than 130 million people are living in areas with unhealthy air. Ground-level ozone triggers over 6.2 million asthma attacks each summer in the eastern United States alone, and some studies show that it may actually cause asthma. Another 160,000 people are sent to emergency rooms due to smog-induced respiratory illness. Power plants are significant contributors to this air quality degradation, as well as causing major reductions in visibility in our national parks and wild places. The National Park Service posts air quality warning signs for hikers in the Great Smoky Mountains every other day on average during the high ozone season. Acid rain continues to fall on the Northeast, and the Southeast, damaging sensitive ecosystems and acidifying lakes and streams. In my state of Vermont, the red spruce, the sugar maple, and other species are becoming more and more immune-compromised. The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation says we must reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 80 percent from current Clean Air Act requirements to begin biological recovery mid-century in the Northeastern U.S. That means bringing emissions way down now, not prolonging the wait for healthy trees and lakes. Coal-fired power plants emit the bulk of the uncontrolled mercury emissions in the U.S. Mercury is a potent neurotoxic pollutant. It contaminates fish causing fish consumption warnings in 41 States. And mercury puts over 60,000 children at risk of negative developmental effects due to fetal exposure. Despite our international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels through voluntary means, we have failed. In particular, power sector emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, have increased by more than 25 percent since 1990. This failure increases the risks from global warming. It is plainly obvious that we must make swift and major reductions in these pollutants for the sake of public health, the environment, and the world's climate. Without quick action, the nation's fleet of fossil power plants will continue to inefficiently belch out millions of tons of harmful pollutants. The Clean Power Act of 2003 will mainly use the largely successful cap-and-trade system in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to make quick and cost-effective reductions in these pollutants. At the same time, this bill does not abolish or eliminate any of the vital local and regional air quality protection programs in the Clean Air Act. Our bill reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide by 81 percent from 2000. Nitrogen oxides will be reduced by 71 percent from 2000. And carbon dioxide will be capped at 21 percent below 2000 levels. Mercury will be controlled to 90 percent below 1999 levels. This bill has a hybrid allocation system for distributing the allowances for the three capped and tradable pollutants (NOX, SOX, CO2). Most allocations, about \2/3\, go to households and consumers. The rest go to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other categories. This system rewards cleaner power producers and ensures that the public gets compensated for the polluters' use of the atmosphere. Our bill is intended to save the lives that are now being lost prematurely to lung disease and other illnesses. We want to continue on the path set in 1990 of reducing acid rain. We want certainty that mercury will no longer threaten unborn children and the future environment will be safer and cleaner for them when they are grown. Certainty is a valuable commodity. Industry witnesses have testified that certainty is critical to their investment strategies. Our bill provides a clear signal on exactly what is expected of pollution sources and when. I want certainty that the promise of the Clean Air Act will be delivered to all Americans. At the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have heard many times that technologies are readily available to meet the challenges in our bill. And that these challenges can be met in a cost-effective manner that allows our economy to prosper and improve public health. We can't afford to slow down progress on achieving better air quality and we must start to make real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The voluntary approach has failed for 12 years now and we must do better. As Senators may know, when I was Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, we approved a bill nearly identical to the bill that we are introducing today. The only significant difference is that the deadline for compliance with all the pollution caps except mercury have been moved later by one year. Mercury still follows the schedule in the consent decree which requires compliance by 2008. I look forward to entering into serious discussions with the Administration on signing into law good, comprehensive four-pollutant legislation. However, their actions so far on air quality matters have not fostered an atmosphere of trust and cooperation. I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the legislation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Clean Power Act of 2003 along with 19 of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats. That is a fifth of the Senate on record supporting a measure which dramatically reduces emissions of four pollutants coming from power plants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury. These pollutants create or contribute to smog, soot, acid rain, mercury contamination and global warming. They cause death, disease, ecological degradation, birth defects, and increase the risk of abrupt and unwelcome climate changes. The nation has made some impressive strides in reducing air pollution since 1990. But there is a lot of unfinished business, a fact confirmed every day by more and ever better science. Power plants are still the nation's single largest source of air pollution, including greenhouse gases. They are responsible for 60 percent or more of national sulfur dioxide emissions, 25 percent of nitrogen oxides, 40 percent of carbon dioxide, and about 45 tons of mercury annually. Fine particulate matter coming from power plants, mainly through SOX and NOX emissions, is causing or contributing to the premature deaths of approximately 30,000 people. More than 130 million people are living in areas with unhealthy air. Ground-level ozone triggers over 6.2 million asthma attacks each summer in the eastern United States alone, and some studies show that it may actually cause asthma. Another 160,000 people are sent to emergency rooms due to smog-induced respiratory illness. Power plants are significant contributors to this air quality degradation, as well as causing major reductions in visibility in our national parks and wild places. The National Park Service posts air quality warning signs for hikers in the Great Smoky Mountains every other day on average during the high ozone season. Acid rain continues to fall on the Northeast, and the Southeast, damaging sensitive ecosystems and acidifying lakes and streams. In my state of Vermont, the red spruce, the sugar maple, and other species are becoming more and more immune-compromised. The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation says we must reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 80 percent from current Clean Air Act requirements to begin biological recovery mid-century in the Northeastern U.S. That means bringing emissions way down now, not prolonging the wait for healthy trees and lakes. Coal-fired power plants emit the bulk of the uncontrolled mercury emissions in the U.S. Mercury is a potent neurotoxic pollutant. It contaminates fish causing fish consumption warnings in 41 States. And mercury puts over 60,000 children at risk of negative developmental effects due to fetal exposure. Despite our international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels through voluntary means, we have failed. In particular, power sector emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, have increased by more than 25 percent since 1990. This failure increases the risks from global warming. It is plainly obvious that we must make swift and major reductions in these pollutants for the sake of public health, the environment, and the world's climate. Without quick action, the nation's fleet of fossil power plants will continue to inefficiently belch out millions of tons of harmful pollutants. The Clean Power Act of 2003 will mainly use the largely successful cap-and-trade system in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to make quick and cost-effective reductions in these pollutants. At the same time, this bill does not abolish or eliminate any of the vital local and regional air quality protection programs in the Clean Air Act. Our bill reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide by 81 percent from 2000. Nitrogen oxides will be reduced by 71 percent from 2000. And carbon dioxide will be capped at 21 percent below 2000 levels. Mercury will be controlled to 90 percent below 1999 levels. This bill has a hybrid allocation system for distributing the allowances for the three capped and tradable pollutants (NOX, SOX, CO2). Most allocations, about \2/3\, go to households and consumers. The rest go to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other categories. This system rewards cleaner power producers and ensures that the public gets compensated for the polluters' use of the atmosphere. Our bill is intended to save the lives that are now being lost prematurely to lung disease and other illnesses. We want to continue on the path set in 1990 of reducing acid rain. We want certainty that mercury will no longer threaten unborn children and the future environment will be safer and cleaner for them when they are grown. Certainty is a valuable commodity. Industry witnesses have testified that certainty is critical to their investment strategies. Our bill provides a clear signal on exactly what is expected of pollution sources and when. I want certainty that the promise of the Clean Air Act will be delivered to all Americans. At the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have heard many times that technologies are readily available to meet the challenges in our bill. And that these challenges can be met in a cost-effective manner that allows our economy to prosper and improve public health. We can't afford to slow down progress on achieving better air quality and we must start to make real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The voluntary approach has failed for 12 years now and we must do better. As Senators may know, when I was Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, we approved a bill nearly identical to the bill that we are introducing today. The only significant difference is that the deadline for compliance with all the pollution caps except mercury have been moved later by one year. Mercury still follows the schedule in the consent decree which requires compliance by 2008. I look forward to entering into serious discussions with the Administration on signing into law good, comprehensive four-pollutant legislation. However, their actions so far on air quality matters have not fostered an atmosphere of trust and cooperation. I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the legislation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, during his State of the Union speech, President Bush said that he has, sent to us [Congress] his Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. What he did not say is that the present Clean Air Act, according to EPA, will do a better and faster job of reducing emissions than his proposal. It will do all that without eliminating vital air quality protections as proposed in the President's Clear Skies bill. What he did not say is that the proposal's timeline does not work with the Clean Air Act's. It stalls and delays present State and general efforts to achieve air quality standards and it also ignores global warming. Worse yet, the President's proposal would contribute to the premature death of tens of thousands of people who we could otherwise save by full and faithful implementation of the present Clean Air Act. Under his plan, there will be more areas struggling longer to achieve attainment of air quality standards. In 2001, large power plants were responsible for emissions of 10.6 million tons of sulfur dioxide, SOX and 4.1 million tons of nitrogen oxides, NOX. That is 33 percent and 25 percent less, respectively, from 1990 levels. But that is still far too much pollution going into our air, our lungs and falling onto our land. These acid rain and smog causing pollutants contribute heavily to premature mortality, asthma and lung disease. They also continue the acidification of ecosystems in New England and elsewhere. In 2001, EPA advised industry that the Clean Air Act at full implementation would likely require an 80 percent reduction in SOX and a 70 percent reduction in NOX from today's pollution levels. EPA also said that mercury, a potent neurotoxic pollutant, would have to be reduced by 90 percent. EPA said these reductions would have to occur in 2008 for mercury, 2010 for NOX, and 2012 for SOX. The President's proposal hits none of these marks, and still takes 6 more years to even get close to the necessary reductions. The proposal falls significantly short of Clean Air Act requirements. Senators can see a comparison outlined in this chart. The President's proposal also falls short by approximately 1.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide. That's the amount that should be reduced by the electric utility sector under our treaty commitment to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Clearly, we have failed. Perhaps these shortfalls are why no Senators cosponsored the President's Clear Skies proposal when it was finally introduced last year. Perhaps the elimination of important State and local air protection authorities kept senators from supporting it. Whatever the reason, the President's proposal had little or no public support. Yet, since January 20, 2001, the administration has had every opportunity to constructively engage with us and promote his Clear Skies proposal. But, they did little or nothing. They certainly did not respond in a timely, helpful way to legitimate inquiries on its effects. Instead, they spent their time figuring out ways to deregulate and to rollback air quality protections under the cloak and shadow of their three-pollutant initiative. Perhaps now, as the 2004 elections get nearer and the administration as yet has no tangible and positive environmental achievements of its own, we can work together, I urge us to work together to make progress. But, unless the Administration agrees to cooperate on information sharing and problem solving, we are going to get nowhere even faster. We cannot afford to change and we should not change the Clean Air Act without knowing the likely outcome of our actions. Let's assume for a moment that we all want the same things. We want to stop acid rain. We want to reduce mercury-related fish contamination and birth defects. We want to start dealing with manmade global warming. Most importantly, we want cleaner, clearer air as soon as we can get it. We can achieve all those goals in a four-pollutant bill. We can do even better than the Clean Air Act at full implementation if we have the will and the courage. But doing less than the Clean Air Act would provide is simply backsliding. I will soon be introducing an alternative to the President's proposal with Senators Collins, Lieberman and others. This legislation is a better and much more accurate response to the environmental and public health problems that our Nation faces. In the coming days and weeks, I will take to the floor to discuss the need for strong legislation. I will continue my efforts to obtain information that the administration continues to withhold. This regards the legal, public health and environmental effects of their deregulation efforts as well as their three-pollutant approach. A detailed chronology of correspondence on our New Source Review requests appears in the Record of January 21st. On Tuesday evening, the EPA Administrator called to tell me the President would speak on the Clear Skies proposal in the State of the Union. She said she hopes we can work together. I don't doubt Governor Whitman's sincerity. But, so far, ``working together'' on environmental policy has been an alien concept for this White House. Instead, they have left Congress, the States, the environmentalists, and the people, in a public relations haze. Progress will be much easier and swifter if we can really work together honestly and without all the smoke and mirrors. That is the only way to approach these severe public health and environmental problems. That is why a four-pollutant bill is necessary. I point to the chart and urge people to look at this chart which demonstrates very clearly what would happen if we leave things the way we are or if we put the ``Clear Skies'' in. We are much better off to leave the Clean Air Act where it is than we are to do anything. But we will be producing and bringing forward at a future time our four- pollutant bill, again, which will do even more than the present Clean Air Act and does not degrade or lessen the Clean Air Act. I urge everyone to be very alert about what is going on in the environmental legislation because it could get better and save lives or it could knock it out. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, a firm commitment to protect public safety and the welfare of wild cats that are increasingly being kept as pets. I am joined by Senator Ensign of Nevada, Senator Wyden of Oregon and Senator Levin of Michigan as original co-sponsors of this legislation. This bill amends the Lacy Act Amendment of 1981 to bar the interstate and foreign commerce of carnivorous wild cats, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars. The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited species, but would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets. Current figures estimate that there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the United States. In fact, there are more tigers in captivity in the United States than there are in native habitats throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are kept in zoos, most of these animals are kept as pets, living in cages behind someone's house, in a State that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous animals. Tigers are not the only animals sought as exotic pets. Today there are more than 1,000 web sites that specialize in the trade of lions, cougars, and leopards to promote them as domestic pets. Untrained owners are not capable of meeting the needs of these animals. Local veterinarians, animal shelters, and local governments are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing for their proper care. If they are to be kept in captivity, these animals must be cared for by trained professionals who can meet their behavioral, nutrition, and physical needs. People who live near these animals are also in real danger. These cats are large and powerful animals, capable of injuring or killing innocent people. There are countless stories of many unfortunate and unnecessary incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered public safety. Last year in Lexington, TX, a three-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. In Loxahatchee, FL, a 58 year-old woman was bitten on the head by a 750 pound Siberian-Bengal Tiger being kept as a pet, and in Quitman, AR, four 600 to 800 pound tigers escaped from a ``private safari''. Parents living nearby sat in their front yards with high-powered rifles, guarding their children at play, frightened that the wild tigers might attack them. This is a balanced approach that preserves the rights of those already regulated by the Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act such as circuses, zoos, and research facilities. This Act specifically targets unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining these wild cats as exotic pets. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals can be kept as pets. The United States Department of Agriculture states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars, and leopards are dangerous animals . . . Because of these animals' potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an animal that can be friendly and lovable can be very dangerous.'' The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.'' This bill preserves those local regulations already in existence. Full bans are already in place in 12 States and partial bans have been enacted in 7 States. I sincerely hope that grass roots organizations continue to encourage State and local governments to ban the private ownership of exotic cats. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States, the Funds for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. No one should be endangered by those who cannot properly keep these animals. Exotic cats in captivity should be able to live humanely and healthfully. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to working with our partners in the House to enact the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, a firm commitment to protect public safety and the welfare of wild cats that are increasingly being kept as pets. I am joined by Senator Ensign of Nevada, Senator Wyden of Oregon and Senator Levin of Michigan as original co-sponsors of this legislation. This bill amends the Lacy Act Amendment of 1981 to bar the interstate and foreign commerce of carnivorous wild cats, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars. The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited species, but would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets. Current figures estimate that there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the United States. In fact, there are more tigers in captivity in the United States than there are in native habitats throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are kept in zoos, most of these animals are kept as pets, living in cages behind someone's house, in a State that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous animals. Tigers are not the only animals sought as exotic pets. Today there are more than 1,000 web sites that specialize in the trade of lions, cougars, and leopards to promote them as domestic pets. Untrained owners are not capable of meeting the needs of these animals. Local veterinarians, animal shelters, and local governments are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing for their proper care. If they are to be kept in captivity, these animals must be cared for by trained professionals who can meet their behavioral, nutrition, and physical needs. People who live near these animals are also in real danger. These cats are large and powerful animals, capable of injuring or killing innocent people. There are countless stories of many unfortunate and unnecessary incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered public safety. Last year in Lexington, TX, a three-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. In Loxahatchee, FL, a 58 year-old woman was bitten on the head by a 750 pound Siberian-Bengal Tiger being kept as a pet, and in Quitman, AR, four 600 to 800 pound tigers escaped from a ``private safari''. Parents living nearby sat in their front yards with high-powered rifles, guarding their children at play, frightened that the wild tigers might attack them. This is a balanced approach that preserves the rights of those already regulated by the Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act such as circuses, zoos, and research facilities. This Act specifically targets unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining these wild cats as exotic pets. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals can be kept as pets. The United States Department of Agriculture states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars, and leopards are dangerous animals . . . Because of these animals' potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an animal that can be friendly and lovable can be very dangerous.'' The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.'' This bill preserves those local regulations already in existence. Full bans are already in place in 12 States and partial bans have been enacted in 7 States. I sincerely hope that grass roots organizations continue to encourage State and local governments to ban the private ownership of exotic cats. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States, the Funds for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. No one should be endangered by those who cannot properly keep these animals. Exotic cats in captivity should be able to live humanely and healthfully. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to working with our partners in the House to enact the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as the President prepares to address the Nation, I hope he will remember that homeland security starts here at home, and that he addresses the critical domestic priorities facing our Nation at this time. Today, very briefly, I want to discuss a few of those priorities. In last year's State of the Union Address, the President highlighted his and Congress's bipartisan efforts on education. He discussed how education was integral to having a secure Nation with a well-educated and trained workforce that would grow and strengthen our economy. President Bush said: Good jobs begin with good schools, and we've made a fine start. But you cannot educate our children on the cheap, and I am afraid that is what the President is asking our Nation's educational system to do. Last year's Bush administration budget was the worst education budget in 7 years. The Bush budget fell $7 billion short of the resources promised in the No Child Left Behind Act, and it cut funding for the legislation's initiatives by $90 million. It also proposed less than half of the Federal commitment to special education. This $11 billion shortfall negatively affects all of our public school students and shifts billions of dollars more to local property taxes. At the same time, our communities are being forced to make decisions on defraying education budget shortfalls. Some schools are having to cut days off of their years and time off for the students. That is a crisis that should not happen. Some school districts are considering shortening the school year in order to be able to live within their budget. Some schools no longer have money to hire substitute teachers for the remainder of the school year. We have a responsibility to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to receive a high-quality education, from prekindergarten to elementary and secondary, to special education, to technical and higher education and beyond. Unfortunately, any gains that have been made in education achievement are currently in jeopardy due to the lack of funds at the local, State, and Federal levels. There is nothing more important to our Nation's future, to our homeland security, and to our economy than ensuring we have a top-notch educational system that is the envy of the world. I call on the Bush administration to make education funding and our children's future a higher national priority. The Environment Mr. President, I also want to briefly discuss the Bush administration's record on environmental issues. As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am sorry to report that the Bush administration continues to move us backward instead of forward in our efforts to protect our environment. Weekly, usually on Friday afternoons, when the press is all asleep, or whatever, the Bush administration stages the below-radar attacks on public health and the environment. The administration ignores the abundant proof of imminent and long-term threats from pollution that endanger our lives and our ecosystems. Today and every day since the administration took office, approximately 82 people will have died prematurely due to sickness and lung disease caused by fine particulate matter from powerplant pollution, which could and should be prevented. Today and every day since the administration took office, up to 160 acres of vital wetlands have been converted for development or paved over. Instead of trying to slow the rate of wetlands destruction, the administration is seeking to ease existing wetlands protection. Today and every day since the administration took office, the Nation adds around 16 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, each year contributing 25 percent of the world's total carbon. This raises the risk and threat of global warming. Shortly after being sworn in, the President reversed his commitment to control greenhouse gases and has not looked back once. I am afraid the Bush administration's environmental policies have been more focused on protecting the special interests than protecting the air and water and land that we all share. In closing, on the issues of education funding and the environment, I am afraid our Nation has taken two steps back rather than one step forward. I can only hope that for the good of this Nation we can come together and once again move this Nation in the right direction. How much time do I have?