Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Vermont is proud of the fact that it has provided leadership throughout the centuries, and the Morrill Act did more for expanding the ability of education for our young people to strengthen this Nation than any other action that has been taken since. I thank the Senator for bringing up the history, especially relative to my own State.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for the amendment. It is a crime that we have not been utilizing the Superfund the way it should be utilized. The Senator is putting it back on track. I commend the Senator for his efforts.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Governor Tom Ridge to head the newly created Department of Homeland Security. Although I support his confirmation, I would like to elaborate on my expectation that Governor Ridge will be responsive to Congressional committees as he carries out his duties. As the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, I have been deeply concerned about the creation of this new department. I voted against the legislation creating the Homeland Security Department in part because of concerns about the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, role in the new organization and its ability to carry out its mission once moved into the Department. The Environment and Public Works Committee, EPW, will continue to have oversight of FEMA within the new department. I fully expect Governor Ridge to answer any and all questions we may have about FEMA's new role in a responsive and timely fashion. I also expect the Department to act to protect our chemical and nuclear plants from attack and to support legislation such as S. 157, the Chemical Security Act sponsored by Senator Corzine and myself in the 108th Congress, and favorably reported by the EPW Committee in the 107th Congress as S. 1602, and S. 1746, the Nuclear Security Act sponsored by Senator Reid and reported favorably by the EPW Committee in the 107th Congress. Governor Ridge expressed his concern about these important security issues in testimony before the EPW Committee on July 10, 2002, stating, ``The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our enemies look at some of our economic assets as targets. And clearly, the chemical facilities are one of them.'' The Washington Post published a letter on Sunday, October 6, 2002 from Governor Ridge and Administrator Whitman expressing the commitment of the Bush Administration to reduce the vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist attack. In this letter the Governor stated that voluntary efforts alone are not sufficient to provide the level of assurance Americans deserve. I agree with the Governor and expect his engagement in the development of legislation to address this issue. As Senator Levin pointed out in Governor Ridge's confirmation hearing before the Government Affairs committee last week, language contained in section 214 of the implementing legislation for the Homeland Security Department could be interpreted to exempt from disclosure any information included in a voluntary submission, including evidence of illegal activity such as hazardous waste dumping. Further information, even if discovered independently of the submission, could not be used in any action against that company. Even a Member of Congress would be prevented from taking any action with that information. In other words, this language could give substantial legal shelter to companies acting illegally. The potential environmental consequences of this are enormous. While I note the potential for this interpretation, I do not believe it is the correct interpretation, and I was heartened to hear that Secretary Ridge shares my views on this. In last week's confirmation hearing, he said, ``That certainly wasn't the intent, I'm sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption--to give wrongdoers protection, or to protect illegal activity. And I'll certainly work with you to clarify that language.'' I agree with the Secretary that ambiguities in this language must be clarified to make clear that it is only the physical document being submitted to the Department of Homeland Security that is intended to be protected by this provision. Records generated elsewhere or by other means, even if they contain similar or identical information to that which was submitted to Homeland Security, would not be affected by this provision but would continue to be treated under existing Freedom of Information Act provisions or other applicable law. This allows confidentiality of the information voluntarily submitted to Homeland Security, while still allowing other Government agencies to proceed with their duties under existing law. It also allows the public continued access to information to which it has traditionally been entitled under our public information laws. I look forward to working with Governor Ridge as he assumes his new post.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Inhofe amendment and for the Edwards amendment. The Inhofe amendment might appear to be a step in the right direction. It demonstrates our legitimate concern that these NSR changes are bad for the environment, bad for public health. It shows that these impacts deserve better study. Unfortunately, for that one step forward, the Inhofe amendment takes two steps backward. The Inhofe amendment requires a study that should have been completed long before the rules were finalized and certainly before they become effective. That is the whole point of Executive Order 12866. The Agency should have done a comprehensive cost and benefit analysis of this deregulation, because of the tremendous potential loss in health benefits. Instead, the Agency issued a warmed over version of its report to the White House energy task force and called it analysis. That report is simply propaganda to justify deregulating vast numbers of major sources of pollution. These final NSR rules are very different from the reforms proposed by the Clinton administration. The differences warrant longer review and consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have tried to do that. But this administration has fought us at every turn on this matter. They refuse to share information that is our right to have. The Inhofe amendment doesn't work. It would bar the door after the horse has already left the barn. We need real public health and air quality information before the rules take effect, not later, after the damage is done. That damage could be severe. Independent analysis for just a few states--Florida, Virginia and Colorado--suggests that the rules would allow new emissions of thousands of tons annually of smog or acid rain causing pollutants. There is one final note for Senators to consider--the potentially large increases in pollution from these so-called NSR ``improvements'' will come back to haunt them. Other sources and sectors in nonattainment areas, such as transportation, for instance, will have to make up the difference in emissions that is necessary to achieve air quality standards. It's a zero sum game. Senators should first vote against the Inhofe amendment and then support the Edwards-Lieberman-Jeffords amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Edwards amendment and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that amendment. Senators should know that I support making improvements to the New Source Review, NSR, program. I want NSR to fulfill its promise of developing ever better pollution control technology and cleaner air. We can and should make it easier for owners of pollution sources to get answers from permitting authorities about whether or not NSR applies to their facility. They could benefit from an updated, more consistent and timely process. That's not really in question. Unfortunately, every reliable sign indicates that EPA's recent final rules are not really improvements to the NSR process at all. Instead, in the name of ``flexibility'' these new rules appear designed to increase air pollution. At a minimum, they will certainly allow it. EPA claims that there will be an environmental benefit from these rules. However, they have done no credible work to show that that is in fact true. And believe me, we have asked repeatedly and unsuccessfully for the administration's honest assessment of the impact of these rules since May 2001. For example, the agency promised to deliver to the Environment and Public Works Committee a document log relating to these rules by October 24, 2002. We hoped to find emissions information in those files, but the agency failed to keep the promise and failed to provide Congress its due. We're still waiting for the log. I ask unanimous consent that a chart of the Committee's communications on NSR be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. This administration's record in responding to legitimate oversight by Congress has been dismal on this matter. Though the agency will not respond honestly, independent analyses done by Abt Associates for the Environmental Integrity Project demonstrates that these new rules are likely to lead to significant increases in pollution at various types of facilities. These case studies can be found at www.refund.org/eit/docs/abill-mobil.pdf and abtin-nucor2.pdf. The association of States' air administrators have expressed concerns about these rules and asked that their effective date be deferred until March 2004. Nine Attorneys General, from Vermont and other States, have filed suit against the Agency for violating the Clean Air Act and other statutes through these rules. These rules allow sources to inflate their emissions baselines, or to be designated as so-called ``clean units'' for a decade or more. That way, even modifications that increase emissions will not trigger NSR and the use of better, more effective pollution controls. As Assistant Administrator Jeff Holmstead has confirmed to Congress in testimony, these new revisions to major NSR applicability criteria would exclude an estimated 50 percent of sources that might otherwise be subject to major NSR. An internal EPA memo from June 2001 estimated that the average annual health benefits in terms of avoided mortality from just one small part of the NSR program are, at a minimum, about $400 million annually and up to $3.8 billion. Now, if we tell 50 percent of those sources that they don't have to worry about triggering NSR, then those health benefits are going to fly out the window along with more pollution. That means more people dying or increased lung disease and sickness. This is just one small part of the NSR program. EPA steadfastly refuses to analyze the larger, nonattainment NSR program for its benefits. The administration has conveniently ignored Executive Order 12866 on regulatory review. These revisions are obviously significant under that Order because of its hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in annual health benefits. So, before it goes forward, there must be a thorough and reliable consideration of its benefits and its costs. That's why I'm supporting this amendment. I'm not a big fan of making environmental policy through the appropriations process, but these rules appear egregious to me. It's time that we had the National Academy of Sciences review the situation, since the agency and the administration do not respond to Congress or the public. I hope that the Academy can give us a quick and impartial opinion on the impacts of these rules on public health and the environment. To give them time to do that, the amendment defers the effective date of the rules for about six months. Mr. President, this administration has a disturbing anti-environment agenda. These NSR changes are just the tip of the iceberg. This group wants to deregulate without considering the public health and environmental effects. That's wrong. There is no good reason to increase air pollution. Science tells us that time and time again. We have the technology to constantly improve our emission performance. This administration wants to take the whole country backward instead of forward. I urge Senators to support the amendment. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.017 I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, like the Senator from Connecticut, I was here in 1975. This was an unusual year for Republicans. This was the Watergate year, and I was one of the very few who was enabled by the political process to represent the State of Vermont at that time. Because there were so few Republicans at that time, the day I walked on the floor, I ended up being the ranking member on the Select Education Committee which handled this issue in the House. Thus I have a personal understanding of the need and a personal responsibility. Ted Kennedy was on that conference committee with the Senate, Bob Stafford was another one, and John Brademas was the wonderful leader of the Democrats at that time. We struggled over how much money would be needed. We came up with a solution and then agreed the Federal Government ought to come up with 45 percent of the burden that was placed upon the States. I stand today somewhat sad in the sense we still have not reached that promise or anywhere near it. We are about half of that now. I look at severe cuts that have occurred and the lack of money for the States and see they are imperiled at this point to be able to give not only a good education, as required in the constitutional mandate, to young people with special needs but also of all children because of the dire circumstances we have. I first thank my good friend, Senator Dodd, for bringing this important amendment to the floor. This amendment is about making sure that all children have an opportunity to learn, and I want to urge my colleagues to support this very critical amendment. We must recognize that we cannot provide all of our children with the opportunity to achieve unless we support our children with adequate resources. The level of funding for education in this omnibus appropriations bill is unconsicionable. When I first arrived in Congress in 1975, one of the first legislative initiatives I worked on was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now known as IDEA. We wrote the legislation to ensure that children with disabilities receive the special education and related services they need and deserve. This is expensive. We also recognized, however, that educating children with disabilities would be very costly, and therefore promised that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the excess cost of educating children with disabilities. At that time, nearly half of all disabled children, approximately 2 million children, were not receiving a public education. They were not even in school. Another 2 million children were placed in segregated, inadequate classrooms. It was brutal. Today, IDEA serves approximately 6 million disabled children. IDEA has been very successful in providing the basic constitutional right of an education to our children with disabilities: dropout rates have decreased, graduation rates have increased, and the percentage of college freshmen with a disability has almost tripled. IDEA has helped individuals with disabilities become independent, wage-earning, tax-paying contributors to this Nation. The problem, however, is that we have not kept our promise of helping the States pay for the costs of educating children with disabilities. Although Congress has increased IDEA funding in recent years, it has woefully failed to meet its obligation to fully fund IDEA. Until we do that, we will not have done what we promised. Rather than contributing the 40 percent as promised, currently, we only pay about 17 percent. I would like to recognize Senators Harkin and Hagel, and, of course Senator Dodd, for their unyielding commitment to our children and to our schools, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to fully fund IDEA. The underlying appropriations bill only increases IDEA funding by $1 billion. At that rate, we're on course to fully fund IDEA in the year 2035. I know that the children of Vermont, and the children across this country, cannot wait another 32 years. And yet, as we continue to underfund IDEA, the costs associated with educating children with disabilities continue to rise and absorb increasingly larger portions of school districts' budgets. For example, in my State of Vermont, the special education costs have increased by 150 percent over the past 10 years, and the Federal underfunding leads to the State and local districts to spend approximately $20 million more from local sources than if Federal funding were provided at the maximum level. I know that these problems are not unique to Vermont; but rather, they are shared by States and school districts across the country. And now State governments are battling the worst fiscal conditions since World War II. According to the National Governors Association, budget shortfalls will be as high as $50 billion this year and $60 to $70 billion next year. Accordingly, State education budgets throughout the country are facing severe cuts, and schools must take drastic measures just to make ends meet, no less meet the burdensome mandates of the No Child Left Behind law. This amendment represents a significant step forward providing some relief to our schools, and I emphasize the word ``some.'' We must recognize that we cannot provide all of our children with the opportunity to achieve unless we support our children with adequate resources. We must provide our schools with those desperately needed resources and perhaps then we can ensure that, indeed, not one of our children is left behind. The President has made that promise, but I see nothing in the budget or anywhere else that indicates an attempt to bear that cost our States have shouldered for so long. This amendment brings us that little bit closer to our obligation to America's children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to support this bipartisan amendment to provide additional funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). At a time when home heating prices are increasing dramatically and temperatures in my home state of Vermont are plunging, we can ill afford cuts in the LIHEAP program. I have fought for years to make sure that no Vermonter has to choose between heating and other of life's necessities such as putting food on the table or prescription drugs. I am very mindful of the financial strains that low-income Vermonters feel when the weather gets cold. We must continue to make sure that funding for LIHEAP is a priority of this administration and of the Congress. I am hopeful that LIHEAP will continue to provide a safety net to families and the elderly who are buffeted by high fuel prices, loss of benefits, and sickness. I am going to close this short statement with this week's forecast from the National Weather Service for Chittenden County. In very stark terms, more than any speech, it demonstrates the need for LIHEAP in Vermont. Tonight. Mostly clear and bitterly cold. Low 10 to 15 below zero. Northwest wind 10 to 20 mph early tonight. Diminishing to 10 mph late. Wind chills 20 to 25 below zero. Wednesday. Mostly sunny and continued very cold. High around zero. Northwest wind 10 to 15 mph. Wednesday night. Increasing clouds. Low 10 below to 20 below. Thursday. Becoming cloudy with light snow likely in the afternoon. High 5 to 15 above. Chance of snow 60 percent. Thursday night. Mostly cloudy with a chance of snow showers. Low 5 below to 5 above. Chance of snow 30 percent. Friday. Partly cloudy. High 10 to 15. Saturday. Partly cloudy. Low 5 below to 5 above and high in the teens. Sunday. Cloudy with a chance of snow. Low 5 below to 5 above and high in the lower 20s. Monday. A chance of snow showers. Otherwise partly cloudy. Low zero to 10 above and high in the lower 20s. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Massachusetts and all the others who have come before us this afternoon supporting this amendment. This amendment supports funding for two significant programs, title I and Pell grants. I have been in the Congress 30 years now and this is the worst education crisis this Nation has seen in that 30 years. I will go back to some of those that we faced before. I come from the State of Justin Morrill, a United States Senator who gave America the Land Grant College System. The Land Grant College System opened the doors for college education for every American child, and I am proud of that. I am proud of Vermont's history in education. I have spent 30 years, as I said, in Congress, and this is the worst education crisis I have seen in that time. I should have known this was coming because I was the chairman of the education committee when it was introduced. I realized, as we started that it was going to be tough. We gave the tests out and did a model on it and found out every school in America, I think, failed to pass it. Then I asked them who was going to pay for the cost of the test, to find out how bad you were. They said: Oh, that will be up to the schools. I think I finally won a battle and shamed them into thinking that maybe at least they ought to pay for the tests that were going to prove how bad they were, and they agreed to do that. Unfortunately, though, now, due to budget cuts at the State, local, and Federal level, those doors we thought we were opening are becoming closed. We have the worst education crisis in this Nation in 60 years. Pell grants are important avenues toward making higher education available. The amendment before us will increase higher education opportunities for today's students who will be tomorrow's workforce. The worst crisis we had was at the end of World War II, where thousands of young people came back. I was a young person at that time. But I know that my neighbors came back and they had been interrupted in their studies in high school. They had been interrupted going to college. So we had a crisis of a magnitude that was even worse than today. Hundreds of thousands of young people came back without any high school education. With huge increases in Federal funds we made at that time, we finally got a sufficient amount of money into the system to allow the creation of junior colleges all over this Nation, and allowed people to get back to try to make up all they had lost. So we have experiences of how it is to react to crises and that we can react if we have to. Our higher education institutions are the envy of the world. Yet we have so many individuals who graduate high school first in their class and so desperately want a higher education, but the means are not there for them to make that goal a reality. That is a sad situation. A similar crisis existed in this Nation in the 1960s, when the Sputnik launch came. All of a sudden, we who thought we were the best in the world in science and all found that a Sputnik was raised into the sky by Russia, and we recognized that we were defenseless against that. Our institutions of higher education rallied due to some good strong economic help. They became the best in the world. Federal funds were provided to make that possible. Instead of being behind the eight ball, we had thousands and thousands of students coming from all over the world to come to our institutions of higher learning, to pass and to be ready to bring this country up to a position where we could hopefully be able to head off attacks by missiles. But we have slipped again. Our schools are in dire need, and it is perhaps the worst position we have been in since World War II. Last week we celebrated the 1-week anniversary of No Child Left Behind--the law that is to provide the tools so every child will be able to receive a quality education. In order to accomplish this mission, significant commitments were made to fund K-12 programs authorized under No Child Left Behind. We have yet to see those commitments realized. In addition, the Federal Government, all 50 States, and cities and towns, are facing budget troubles as well. This is especially true in the area of education--both undergraduate and graduate. For example, some of our school districts are considering 4-day weeks. The Tulsa School District recently announced that it could no longer afford to hire substitute teachers for the remainder of the school year. Beginning in the late 1940s, and continuing through the 1960s, this Nation decided that education was a top domestic priority. I mentioned earlier what we did at the end of World War II. The passage of the GI bill at that time gave veterans access to higher education. The passage of the Defense Education Act, which concentrated on teacher preparation for math and science, and title I which realized the importance of providing education resources to our children so economically disadvantaged children could also receive a quality education. We gave them an opportunity, and we succeeded in doing what had to be done to get the quality of our education up. Now we jump back to World War II again and the horrible problems we had in education when hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of young people arrived without the opportunity to have had even a high school education, to say anything about higher education. We found that we had a crisis of great magnitude about which we had to do something. We did. We made the highest increase in educational spending that probably will ever be made because we increased it from 2 percent of the Federal budget to 10 percent of the Federal budget--a huge increase. It worked. We were able to make sure those young people could flourish and that this country could flourish and that it could be the economic wonder it turned into. But now we are in a similar situation which we need to do something about. To give you an example of the comparison of what our Federal Government pays for education with the rest of the world, almost all of our economic competitors pay a substantial percentage of the local school money. In Japan and other countries, 40 percent of the money that goes to the local schools comes from their federal government. What is it in the United States? Right now, less than 2 percent--right around 2 percent--of the moneys for local schools comes from the Federal Government. We need to recognize that our schools are having deep financial problems. We have to, as every other country has, recognize the modern needs and get our share of the education up in the area of 30 to 40 percent for our local schools rather than the meager 7 percent that it is now. That is a big charge and a big challenge for us in the future. Right now we must correct the problems created by the committee in marking up this particular piece of legislation and make sure we bring it up to a more reasonable and effective amount of funding to make sure that every child will not be left behind, but, even more than that, that every child will have some chance of being able to have the education they need. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me time?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to restore funding to Amtrak. I just served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and we had a great interest--and still do-- in the health of Amtrak. Amtrak president, David Gunn, has made clear that failure to adequately fund the railroad will lead to its bankruptcy and liquidation of its assets. This will cost us far more than the dollar value of this amendment. That is unacceptable to my State of Vermont and to the Nation. Across the Nation, Amtrak carries over 23 million riders a year, or roughly 65,000 riders each day. On holidays and other peak times, Amtrak is the best option for many of our citizens. An Amtrak bankruptcy will have a devastating effect on employment and the economy. Amtrak alone employs over 23,000 Americans, and roughly 233,000 commuters will find their daily trip to work delayed and disrupted. In Vermont, as in many rural States, Amtrak is an essential service. My home State provides over $2 million a year to maintain Amtrak service to our towns and villages. If we turn away from Amtrak tonight, Vermonters will surely lose this very vital service. On September 11, Amtrak kept America moving as our airports were idled. I was chairman of the committee at that time and I know the fear we had that Amtrak would not be able to keep going. We need the redundancy in our transportation system, especially in light of the continuing threats. Even when it is Mother Nature who comes calling, as in the blizzards on the east coast in recent years, the rail mode makes it through while our highways and airports are buried and stopped. I have spent the last year examining the state of our Nation's transportation system. The system is hemorrhaging. Our highways and airports are congested and unreliable. We need a viable third choice. Passenger rail is that choice. The United States stands alone among the world's advanced countries in our neglect of the rail mode. Europe, in particular, has a modern rail system, a key part of its balanced continental transportation network. Europe is developing new and advanced rail technologies and exporting these technologies around the world. I have seen demonstrations of those technologies. Our Nation's surface and aviation programs are up for renewal during this session of Congress. So is Amtrak. This is the year to shape America's transportation future, and that is a job for Congress, not for the bankruptcy court. As the ranking member on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I don't want to give away a third of our option--our passenger rail system--before we even begin. Our choice is clear. We can shortchange Amtrak, throw away its assets, disrupt the economy, and forfeit this unique chance to create a balanced transportation system or we can restore Amtrak funding, preserve our options, and bring our Nation's transportation system into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. If you want to proceed, that is fine with me.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Five minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, briefly, I remind those who don't remember that my decision to change parties came about on the basis of education and education funding, not what we have been discussing recently. At that time, the budget had left the Senate with $500 million to be made available for education--maybe $450 million. But when it came back out of conference it was zero, absolutely zero. It was at that point, in order to impress upon this Nation the importance of education and to show my disagreement with my friends on the other side of the aisle, I decided I would change over such that the Democrats would have control of the budget process and that we would not suffer the horrendous cuts which were proposed in education. I would say right now we are still on that issue. The most critical problem we have in this Nation right now is education. I will discuss that now and try to put some light on the difficulties we are having. Usually in times of war the question of national priorities is summed up with a simple phrase: Guns or butter. But today, I fear that the choices aren't that simple. Perhaps it is time that we retool that phrase and ask ourselves, will it be guns or butter, tax breaks or textbooks? As the threat of war dominates our front page headlines and as we talk about stimulating our economy with billions of dollars in tax breaks, I was astonished when I turned to an inside page of the New York Times last weekend and read the headline, ``Schools Ending Year Early Among Efforts to Cut Costs.'' If I may quote from that story: Fourth-grade students in Portland, OR will not read about their State's history in their social studies classes, nor will they study the metric system in math class, nor will they study electricity in their science class. That is because some schools in Portland will be forced to slash more than a month from their school calendars this year because the money has run dry. And Oregon is not alone in this crisis. In California, Oklahoma--all over the country--schools are having to cut millions of dollars and they expect even deeper cuts in the year to come. Schools are cutting janitors, cafeteria workers and substitute teachers in an effort to keep their classrooms in tact. One teacher described it as ``death by a thousand cuts.'' In my home state of Vermont, there is talk of whether a 4-day school week would be an option. This all comes on the heels of last week's celebration of the 1-year anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Somthing is dreadfully wrong with this picture, and if we don't address this now, the consequences will be with us for generations to come. What kind of a nation have we become that we put so little value on a school day? Every school day is sacred. It is an opportunity to expand a child's horizons, an opportunity to help a child build new relationships, an opportunity for a child to learn. Our Nation's public schools cannot overcome the obstacles they face on the cheap. We might pride ourselves as being a superpower, yet we lag dangerously behind our counterparts in our commitment to fund education. Of the major industrial nations, the United States ranks among the lowest in funding education at the Federal level, providing only seven percent of the costs. This figure pales by comparison when you look at our overseas competition. Other nations hold their teachers in the highest regard, and compensate them accordingly. We do not. I laud the efforts of the administration to boost Title 1 funding for the poorest schools, but the one billion dollar increase this year is still far short of the mark. And I once again remind everyone in the Chamber of our failed promise to fund 40 percent of our schools' special education costs. We made that promise more than a quarter of a century ago. It is shameful that we have fallen so short. In other nations, students spend far more time in classrooms than they do in the United States. In China, the average school year is 250 days. In Europe, students spend an average of 190 days a year in the classroom. In the United States, we are down to 180 days, and that number is likely to fall as school budgets are slashed, as we see happening today in Oregon. We cannot, and we should not, stand idly by while our schools struggle without enough money to do their jobs. This is a national disgrace. I understand that there are many priorities facing our Nation, perhaps too many for what our recessionary budget can afford. But when we consider guns and butter, we must not allow textbooks to slip to the bottom of the list. The security of our great Nation is at risk, and the threat is right here at home. We must act responsibly.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for yielding for my comments. I agree with my colleague Senator Inhofe and I look forward to working with him on this major transportation reauthorization bill. He is correct that beginning reauthorization discussions with a low baseline will hinder our efforts in crafting a truly robust national program which will provide strong economic and transportation benefits for all regions. I would be happy to yield back to my colleague Senator Reid.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Mark Twain once said. ``Always do right--this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.'' I rise today to explain why I believe voting against this bill is the right thing to do. Of the may reasons to vote against the bill, I will focus on three-- the bill's treatment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the bill's treatment of the Freedom of Information Act, and the process used to create this new Department. With the passage of this Homeland Security legislation, we will destroy the Federal Emergency Management Agency, losing years of progress toward a well-coordinated Federal response to disasters. As it now exists, FEMA is a lean, flexible agency receiving bipartisan praise as one of the most effective agencies in government. But it hasn't always been that way. Throughout the 1980s, FEMA's focus on Cold War civil defense preparedness left the Agency ill-prepared to respond to natural disasters. The Congressional chorus of critics decried the Agency's misguided focus and reached a crescendo after bungled responses to Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. One of FEMA's leading Congressional critics, then-Representative Tom Ridge said in 1988, ``I was convinced that somewhere along the way, the Federal Emergency Management Agency had lost its sense of mission.'' Over the last decade, refocusing the agency's mission and priorities on natural disasters has left the agency well-equipped to respond to all types of disasters. FEMA's stellar response to September 11th provided this. I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who will? Also of great concern to me are the new Freedom of Information Act exemptions contained in the latest substitute. Unfortunately, the current Homeland Security proposal chokes the public's access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. I ask, are we headed toward an Orwellian society with an all-knowing, secretive big brother reigning over an unknowing public? The bill defines information so broadly that almost anything disclosed by a company to the Department of Homeland Security could be considered secret and kept from the public. Although I believe the current law contains an adequate national security exemption, in the spirit of compromise I supported the carefully crafted bipartisan Senate language contained in both the Lieberman substitute and the Gramm-Miller substitute. The current bill ignores this compromise. The process by which we received this substitute seems eerily similar to the way the White House sprung its original proposal on Congress some time ago. Late last week we received a bill that had magically grown from 35 pages to an unwieldy 484 pages. There was no compromise in arriving at the current substitute, only a mandate to pass the substitute or be branded as weak on homeland security or, worse yet, unpatriotic. Still more troubling, the current bill places little emphasis on correcting what went wrong on September 11, or addressing future threats. Correcting intelligence failures should be our prime concern. Instead, this bill recklessly reshuffles the bureaucratic deck. Furthermore, as my colleague Senator Corzine stated earlier this week, this bill does not address other vitally important issues such as security at facilities that store or use dangerous chemicals. Without provisions to address yet another gaping hole in our Nation's security, why are we now being more deliberate in our approach? In closing, I feel it is irresponsible to divert precious limited resources from our fight against terrorism to create a dysfunctional new bureaucracy that will only serve to give the American people a false--false sense of security. I will vote against this bill because it does nothing to address the massive intelligence failure that led up to the September 11 attacks, it dismantles the highly effectively Federal Emergency Management Agency, and creates dangerous new exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that threaten the fundamental democratic principle of a well-informed citizenry. I am sorry for having to take this position, but I believe so deeply in what I have said that I must do it. I am pleased to have been able to express myself, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia, my faithful friend.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that H.R. 727 will soon be on its way to the President for signature. This bill, which passed the other body by a 401 to 1 margin on March 6, 2002, will help promote the use of electric-assisted low-speed bicycles and will help seniors participate in cycling related activities. For many of our seniors, long-distance bicycle rides or participation in bicycle clubs in areas with extensive hills, can present an unfair challenge. Simply put, this bill will allow seniors to more fully participate in these events while, at the same time, providing solid exercise for them. I believe that in states, such as my home state of Vermont, our senior citizens may derive benefits from using these low-speed pedal- assisted electric bicycles for help getting up our steep terrain. Not only will these bikes improve mobility options for seniors, they will also help to reduce congestion on our roads and air pollution when used for commuting purposes. Since these bikes produce no noise or exhaust because they are powered by small batteries rather than gasoline powered engines, they provide an environmentally friendly transportation option to our citizens and should be treated as bicycles and not as motor vehicles. H.R. 727 states that these low-speed pedal-assisted electric bikes, as defined in very detailed Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, rules--found at 16 CFR 1512--shall be considered bikes and not motor vehicles. These detailed existing safety standards for bicycles should be applied in every state, as in current law, and as would be required under the bill for these low-speed pedal-assisted electric bikes. The existing safety rules are based on extensive experience and tests done on material strength, stem and fork torque resistance, pedal design and the like and should apply throughout the nation. The existing rules, referenced in H.R. 727, set the requirements for such things as: handlebar stem insertions; pedal construction; chain guards; handlebar stem tests; stem-to-fork clamp tests; bicycle design; handlebar strength; front hub retention; attachment hardware; hand levers for brakes; reflectors; pedal reflectors; seat size; maximum seat height; and the like. To assure the safety of these bicycles, the bill provides for federal preemption of State law or requirements--as provided in section 1(d) of the bill--regarding those detailed CPSC safety rules. The CPSC would have the authority to issue additional federal rules regarding the construction and physical properties of these low-speed bicycles to ensure safety. Obviously, local regulation of where these low-power bicycles can be ridden, such as not on sidewalks if that is the state or local rule, or not on high-speed thruways, or whether helmets are required, would still be a local matter. Local or state governments would continue to regulate the use of these and other bikes, who could ride the bikes, and where they could be ridden, but they could not alter the safety rules for the construction of the bikes, or the metals or materials to be used for that construction, which would be in the hands of the CPSC. H.R. 727 also specifies a 20 mph limit on speed, on a flat surface, for these electric assisted bikes. The bikes covered by this bill look similar to ``regular'' low-weight bicycles and will have similar speeds but require less human leg power and stamina. It is important to note that this bill does not relate to other devices such as the Segway human transporter which does not meet any of the detailed requirements for a bicycle set forth in the CPSC rules. I am aware of companies researching such electric bicycle product advancements, such as Wavecrest right here in Northern Virginia, and am excited about the prospects for the future. I appreciate the strong efforts in the other body of Mr. Cliff Stearns, Mr. Billy Tauzin, Mr. Howard Berman, Mr. Earl Blumenauer, Mrs. Lois Capps, Mr. Dennis Moore, Mr. Michael Oxley, Mr. Charles Pickering, Mr. James Oberstar and many others. In the Senate, I appreciate efforts of Chairman Hollings, ranking member Senator McCain and Senator Burns, all of the Commerce Committee, in getting this bill to the Senate floor where it passed without opposition. As I work on the massive reauthorization of our surface transportation program next year, I intend to work to fund additional bicycle paths and enhance existing paths as use of these paths increases over time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Mark Twain once said. ``Always do right--this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.'' I rise today to explain why I believe voting against this bill is the right thing to do. Of the may reasons to vote against the bill, I will focus on three-- the bill's treatment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the bill's treatment of the Freedom of Information Act, and the process used to create this new Department. With the passage of this Homeland Security legislation, we will destroy the Federal Emergency Management Agency, losing years of progress toward a well-coordinated Federal response to disasters. As it now exists, FEMA is a lean, flexible agency receiving bipartisan praise as one of the most effective agencies in government. But it hasn't always been that way. Throughout the 1980s, FEMA's focus on Cold War civil defense preparedness left the Agency ill-prepared to respond to natural disasters. The Congressional chorus of critics decried the Agency's misguided focus and reached a crescendo after bungled responses to Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. One of FEMA's leading Congressional critics, then-Representative Tom Ridge said in 1988, ``I was convinced that somewhere along the way, the Federal Emergency Management Agency had lost its sense of mission.'' Over the last decade, refocusing the agency's mission and priorities on natural disasters has left the agency well-equipped to respond to all types of disasters. FEMA's stellar response to September 11th provided this. I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who will? Also of great concern to me are the new Freedom of Information Act exemptions contained in the latest substitute. Unfortunately, the current Homeland Security proposal chokes the public's access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. I ask, are we headed toward an Orwellian society with an all-knowing, secretive big brother reigning over an unknowing public? The bill defines information so broadly that almost anything disclosed by a company to the Department of Homeland Security could be considered secret and kept from the public. Although I believe the current law contains an adequate national security exemption, in the spirit of compromise I supported the carefully crafted bipartisan Senate language contained in both the Lieberman substitute and the Gramm-Miller substitute. The current bill ignores this compromise. The process by which we received this substitute seems eerily similar to the way the White House sprung its original proposal on Congress some time ago. Late last week we received a bill that had magically grown from 35 pages to an unwieldy 484 pages. There was no compromise in arriving at the current substitute, only a mandate to pass the substitute or be branded as weak on homeland security or, worse yet, unpatriotic. Still more troubling, the current bill places little emphasis on correcting what went wrong on September 11, or addressing future threats. Correcting intelligence failures should be our prime concern. Instead, this bill recklessly reshuffles the bureaucratic deck. Furthermore, as my colleague Senator Corzine stated earlier this week, this bill does not address other vitally important issues such as security at facilities that store or use dangerous chemicals. Without provisions to address yet another gaping hole in our Nation's security, why are we now being more deliberate in our approach? In closing, I feel it is irresponsible to divert precious limited resources from our fight against terrorism to create a dysfunctional new bureaucracy that will only serve to give the American people a false--false sense of security. I will vote against this bill because it does nothing to address the massive intelligence failure that led up to the September 11 attacks, it dismantles the highly effectively Federal Emergency Management Agency, and creates dangerous new exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that threaten the fundamental democratic principle of a well-informed citizenry. I am sorry for having to take this position, but I believe so deeply in what I have said that I must do it. I am pleased to have been able to express myself, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia, my faithful friend.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that H.R. 727 will soon be on its way to the President for signature. This bill, which passed the other body by a 401 to 1 margin on March 6, 2002, will help promote the use of electric-assisted low-speed bicycles and will help seniors participate in cycling related activities. For many of our seniors, long-distance bicycle rides or participation in bicycle clubs in areas with extensive hills, can present an unfair challenge. Simply put, this bill will allow seniors to more fully participate in these events while, at the same time, providing solid exercise for them. I believe that in states, such as my home state of Vermont, our senior citizens may derive benefits from using these low-speed pedal- assisted electric bicycles for help getting up our steep terrain. Not only will these bikes improve mobility options for seniors, they will also help to reduce congestion on our roads and air pollution when used for commuting purposes. Since these bikes produce no noise or exhaust because they are powered by small batteries rather than gasoline powered engines, they provide an environmentally friendly transportation option to our citizens and should be treated as bicycles and not as motor vehicles. H.R. 727 states that these low-speed pedal-assisted electric bikes, as defined in very detailed Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, rules--found at 16 CFR 1512--shall be considered bikes and not motor vehicles. These detailed existing safety standards for bicycles should be applied in every state, as in current law, and as would be required under the bill for these low-speed pedal-assisted electric bikes. The existing safety rules are based on extensive experience and tests done on material strength, stem and fork torque resistance, pedal design and the like and should apply throughout the nation. The existing rules, referenced in H.R. 727, set the requirements for such things as: handlebar stem insertions; pedal construction; chain guards; handlebar stem tests; stem-to-fork clamp tests; bicycle design; handlebar strength; front hub retention; attachment hardware; hand levers for brakes; reflectors; pedal reflectors; seat size; maximum seat height; and the like. To assure the safety of these bicycles, the bill provides for federal preemption of State law or requirements--as provided in section 1(d) of the bill--regarding those detailed CPSC safety rules. The CPSC would have the authority to issue additional federal rules regarding the construction and physical properties of these low-speed bicycles to ensure safety. Obviously, local regulation of where these low-power bicycles can be ridden, such as not on sidewalks if that is the state or local rule, or not on high-speed thruways, or whether helmets are required, would still be a local matter. Local or state governments would continue to regulate the use of these and other bikes, who could ride the bikes, and where they could be ridden, but they could not alter the safety rules for the construction of the bikes, or the metals or materials to be used for that construction, which would be in the hands of the CPSC. H.R. 727 also specifies a 20 mph limit on speed, on a flat surface, for these electric assisted bikes. The bikes covered by this bill look similar to ``regular'' low-weight bicycles and will have similar speeds but require less human leg power and stamina. It is important to note that this bill does not relate to other devices such as the Segway human transporter which does not meet any of the detailed requirements for a bicycle set forth in the CPSC rules. I am aware of companies researching such electric bicycle product advancements, such as Wavecrest right here in Northern Virginia, and am excited about the prospects for the future. I appreciate the strong efforts in the other body of Mr. Cliff Stearns, Mr. Billy Tauzin, Mr. Howard Berman, Mr. Earl Blumenauer, Mrs. Lois Capps, Mr. Dennis Moore, Mr. Michael Oxley, Mr. Charles Pickering, Mr. James Oberstar and many others. In the Senate, I appreciate efforts of Chairman Hollings, ranking member Senator McCain and Senator Burns, all of the Commerce Committee, in getting this bill to the Senate floor where it passed without opposition. As I work on the massive reauthorization of our surface transportation program next year, I intend to work to fund additional bicycle paths and enhance existing paths as use of these paths increases over time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Corzine for his efforts to address the serious issue of chemical site security. The Chemical Security Act, S. 1602, which I cosponsored, would require ``high priority'' facilities to improve security and reduce hazards. The bipartisan and strong support for this issue was demonstrated last July when the bill unanimously passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Across the country, thousands of industrial facilities use dangerous chemicals in amounts that could endanger nearby communities if the facilities were attacked by terrorists. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Management Planning program, there are 123 facilities where a release of chemicals could threaten more than 1 million people. There are also more than 700 facilities from which a chemical release could threaten more than 100,000 residential neighbors. Yet there is no Federal security standard for chemical facilities, no Federal guidelines on facility proximity to neighboring communities, and no Federal agency overseeing the operations and safety of these facilities. This bill is not intended to address chemical accidents. The Clean Air Act already provides existing authority. However, a review of the chemical accident data provides clear insight into the dangers associated with chemical releases from these facilities. Federal data suggests that in 1998 there were almost 50,000 incidents--fires, spills and explosions--over 100 deaths, and nearly 5,000 injuries, related to chemical industrial accidents in the United States. Some analysts suggest that for each catastrophic chemical accident that causes a fatality, there are 300 recordable incidents and 30,000 near misses. One estimate suggests that U.S. chemical accidents cost about $15 billion a year. In 1999, Congress required the Department of Justice to issue, within 3 years, a report to Congress on the vulnerability of chemical facilities to criminal and terrorist activity. For over a year, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has been asking for this report. Beyond a very thin and useless preliminary draft, the administration has not complied with this requirement of the Clean Air Act amendments. The Justice Department claims that funding constraints have impacted their work. This excuse is completely unacceptable, as is the administration's delay in addressing what may be this Nation's biggest terrorist vulnerability. Three years ago, Congress recognized the potential risks to our Nation's chemical security. Not 1 more year or month should pass with this issue unresolved. Press reports highlight the public's frustration. In September, Newsweek reported a failing grade to the Federal Government in protecting chemical plants and other hazardous materials. I believe the article accurately described the forces blocking action: ``industry lobbyists and infighting among a multitude of government agencies trying to defend their turf have combined to hold (Governor) Ridge's office and the Environmental Protection Agency at bay.'' I ask my colleague to step beyond bureaucratic delays and special interest pressures to think of the families that could be impacted by our inaction here today. We must act on this issue as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Also, according to subsection (b), in the one-year time period between the enactment of this Act and the promulgation of regulations by the Department of Interior, the Secretary of Defense must, ``identify measures to minimize and mitigate . . . any adverse impacts of authorized military readiness activities on affected species of migratory birds.'' Is it the Chairman's understanding that DOD has a mandatory obligation to implement these measures?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Finally, according to subsection (b), in the time period in which the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (d) are in effect, the Secretary of Defense must, ``identify measures to minimize and mitigate . . . any adverse impacts of authorized military readiness activities on affected species of migratory birds'' and ``monitor the impacts of such military readiness activities on affected species of migratory birds.'' Is it the Chairman's understanding that these minimization and monitoring measures must be addressed in the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (d), to ensure that those regulations are consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his very articulate statement on Paul's life. We all shared experiences in working with Paul. Every Sunday, the Washington Post Style Section prints a column called ``Life Is Short.'' The column selects one individual and gives a snapshot of that individual's life. If that column focused on Senator Paul Wellstone's life, the single snapshot would be a large photo album. Senator Daschle has said Paul Wellstone was the ``soul of the Senate.'' I believe Paul tried to find the soul in all of us. He challenged us, on a daily basis, to remember that every man, woman, and child in this Nation should have access to quality education, a first- rate health care system that includes mental health and prescription drug coverage, and jobs that provide decent minimum wage. Three weeks ago, Paul made his final appearance in the Chamber. Paul gave a very passionate speech about the need to extend unemployment benefits and provide more help for our veterans. His closing comments were vintage Paul. He said: What are people who cannot find jobs, who are out of work, who are struggling to put food on the table, supposed to do? What in the world is going on? What has happened to our humanity? Later that day, Paul came back to the Senate floor to give his thoughts about the 2003 Defense spending bill. He thanked Senators Inouye and Stevens for their inclusion of an amendment that addressed domestic violence and sexual assault which he had championed. As we all know, the issue is not only important to Paul, it was especially important to his wife Sheila. At the end of those remarks, Paul said, in reference to his own provision that was not included in the final conference agreement: I know my colleagues did their best. We will be back. That was Paul--always gracious in both victory and defeat. Even more importantly, he never focused on defeat because he was constantly plotting his next move to better educate his colleagues and their staff on the issues--always the college professor. I had the honor and the pleasure of working with Paul on an array of issues--education, veterans, dairy, health care, and job training. These are not easy issues, but the difficulty of the issue never deterred Paul. He always saw the glass half full rather than a half- empty glass. In 1997 and 1998, Senators Kennedy, DeWine, Wellstone, and I worked together to pass the Workforce Investment Act, legislation that restructured our job training system. Throughout those 2 years, we had many long meetings. In every single meeting, Paul told us about the impact various provisions would have on Minnesota. There was never a meeting, public or private, where Paul did not mention the concerns and ideas that were on the minds of his constituents. Paul would also tell stories of his children. During many HELP Committee hearings on education, we would often hear about his two children who were teaching in the Minnesota public school system. He was so proud of all his children, his grandchildren, and, of course, Sheila. Paul was also very proud of his staff. He had great respect for their views and always remarked to his colleagues that he was very fortunate to have a very talented and devoted staff. Three years ago at the funeral of Walter Payton, the outstanding Chicago Bears running back, who was also an extraordinary human being, the Rev. Jesse Jackson remarked that on a tombstone, there is a birthday, a small dash, and a date of passing. He said: The dash between those two dates is the part you control. . . . The dash determines the height and depth of how you live your life. Paul Wellstone maximized the height and depth of his dash. I was so lucky to have known Paul, to have had an opportunity to not only work with him but to learn from him and, most importantly, to have been able to call him a good friend. I was en route to Minnesota to campaign for Paul when I learned of his tragic death. I instead spent time with his wonderful sons, David and Mark. I brought them the pictures of their dad celebrating the dairy program victory with Senator Leahy and another recent victory for Minnesota as well as New England. It brought proud smiles to their faces. As I had expected, they were so much like their dad. I know they will continue on the path that Paul and Sheila created for them. Paul, I will miss you, the Senate will miss you, and the country will miss you. May your commitment, energy, integrity, and passion always guide us to do our best at all times. Goodbye, Paul.