Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we will have the opportunity to act positively on one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will consider in this Congress--the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. I am pleased that we are able to vote today on this most vital piece of legislation. Many of our colleagues have worked very hard on this legislation but would like to take this opportunity at the outset of these comments to acknowledge the work of Senator Kennedy, and Senator Frist for originally introducing this bill in the Senate, as well as Congressman Tauzin and Congressman Dingell for their work in the House. From the events on September 11, and the anthrax incidents here in our Capitol and around the country, we know first hand that terrorist attacks on America continue to pose a real threat. We are not immune to the cowardly attempts by well-armed and well-financed groups who intend harm upon us, and we must continue to stand strong against those that resent our nation's unyielding commitment to preserve freedom throughout the world. Today, Congress is taking a step in the right direction. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 solidifies the emergency measures taken last fall by Congress to safeguard the health of all Americans. The Act greatly enhances our ability to prevent and detect bioterrorist threats, and it gives us the resources we need in order to effectively care for our citizens in the event that another biological attack takes place on American soil. The act is a comprehensive, interdepartmental effort to ensure the safety of American families. This legislation will ensure proper communication across Federal agencies so that all of our available resources are put to their best use. As the cornerstone of our emergency response to public health threats, hospitals will be provided ample resources in order to ensure their preparedness in the event of a biological attack. In addition, we have greatly enhanced our ability to track labs and individuals who possess materials that could be used in bioweapons aimed at people or the food we consume, and there are strong measures taken to further protect the food supply throughout America. A primary focus of our efforts is to ensure a National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, and to increase production of vaccines for some of the most deadly diseases, including smallpox. There are also provisions for more timely FDA review of generic drugs, and it reauthorizes the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, PDUFA, an important measure to ensure that newly developed drugs are made available to those who need them most in a safe and timely fashion. I am also pleased that this bill includes language requiring drinking water systems across the country to assess their vulnerability to terrorist attack and to develop emergency response plans to prepare for and respond to such attacks. We all hope there is no need for implementation of these plans, but information leads to preparation, and I am pleased to have a bill today that recognizes the crucial importance of assessing and addressing potential vulnerabilities. As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have worried about the lack of information within the Federal agencies about the security of our Nation's critical infrastructure and facilities. For instance, I am aware of one provision in the Clean Air Act which requires the Department of Justice to assess the vulnerabilities of chemical plants. This provision was enacted years before the tragic events of September 11th, but the assessment is not yet complete. And recently, in the wake of criticism that our government should have been more prepared for terrorist attacks, I read a chilling statement from a government official: ``People are saying we didn't connect the dots. It's awfully hard to connect the dots if people don't give you the dots.'' I do not doubt that industry, communities, local and State governments and emergency responders are taking security measures seriously. But important provisions in this bill will enable our government to ``connect the dots,'' that is, to understand the safety of our Nation's water supply. The substantial funding in this bill will provide enhanced resources for completion of vulnerability assessments quickly, and in a thorough manner. And by requiring that these assessments be provided to the Environmental Protection Agency, we will have the ability to evaluate the security needs of our drinking water systems and to measure our national preparedness for potential threats against our water supply. In addition, we have addressed the concern that some information in these assessments may be sensitive in nature. Although we recognize that it is most often community knowledge and involvement that is most effective in addressing a community's needs, we also recognize that information in the wrong hands can endanger a community. This bill balances these competing concerns by exempting the content of the assessments from the Freedom of Information Act, by requiring implementation of protocols to secure and limit access to the documents at the EPA, and by imposition of criminal penalties upon persons designated by the EPA Administrator to have access to the documents in EPA's possession who knowingly or recklessly disclose those documents. It is important to note, however, that there is not a restriction on EPA's discussing the content of the assessments with persons who may benefit from information about the security of our nation's water supply, such as state and local officials, nor is there restriction intended by this bill upon a water system's voluntarily sharing information with other systems, emergency responders or communities. Our attempt to provide a safeguard against broad disclosure of sensitive information does not lead us to conclude that our citizens should not have the information they need to protect and inform themselves. Finally, I had hoped that this bill would encompass wastewater systems in addition to drinking water systems. I intend to pursue comparable legislation for wastewater systems in this legislative session. This legislation reflects a remarkable effort that drew from the jurisidictions of several Senate and House Committees including the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, the Energy and Commerce, Finance, Ways and Means, Agriculture, Judiciary and my own Environment and Public Works. The many Members from these Committees and the conferees are to be commended for their contributions. Once again I want to acknowledge the yeoman's work done by our staff. In particular I want to recognize HELP Committee staff including, David Nexon, Paul Kim, David Bowen and David Dorsey from Chairman Kennedy's office; Vince Ventimiglia, Steve Irizarry and Katy French of Ranking Member, Senator Gregg's office; and the staff of Senator Frist, including Dean Rosen, Helen Rhee and Shanna Christrup, and Doug Campos- Outcalt. Credit also goes to Debra Barrett, Raissa Geary, Adam Gluck, Kate Hull and Rhonda Richards. Finally, I want to acknowledge my own staff, Sean Donohue, Eric Silva, Allison Taylor and Jo-Ellen Darcy who worked diligently to ensure that appropriate public health safeguards were part of this measure, including environmental provisions that will help provide for the safety of our public water systems.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not think there is any objection to this amendment. This is in proper order, and I ask for it to be accepted.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the farm bill conference report. It has taken us months to get to this point, but we now have a comprehensive farm bill that addresses the needs of our farmers, as well as our consumers. I thank the members of the conference committee for their hard work and dedication, and I urge my colleagues to recognize their good work by voting in favor of final passage. The 2002 farm bill represents a step forward on many issues. This is evident in several of the provisions in the bill, especially those relating to dairy, conservation, nutrition and preservation. In these areas, the new farm bill goes well beyond current policy, building on the successes of yesterday, to help meet the demands of today. I am particularly encouraged by the program this farm bill puts in place to protect our Nation's dairy farmers. House and Senate conferees have achieved consensus on legislation that provides direct, counter- cyclical payments when the Boston Class I price falls below a target price of $16.94 per hundredweight. When the price of fluid milk drops below this level, farmers will receive a payment on 45 percent of the difference between $16.94 and the market price. These payments, capped at 2.4 million pounds of milk per year, will be paid to all producers across the Nation. To ensure the counter-cyclical nature of these payments, the 2.4 million pound cap is intended to apply only to milk production marketed during months when payments are made to producers. These counter-cyclical payments are especially important in my home State of Vermont, and throughout New England, where the expiration of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has left producers vulnerable to volatile dairy markets. Since July of 1997 until September of last year, the Northeast Dairy Compact made payments to producers during months when Class I prices fell below the compact over-order price of $16.94. If the compact had been in place, producers would have collected payments each of the last 5 months due to the steep decline in prices last December. Since then, dairy markets have remained depressed, with no recovery forecasted in the near future. Recognizing that the loss of the compact has significantly impacted dairy farms in New England, this legislation makes payments under this program retroactive to December 1, 2001. Retroactive payments will not only help our farmers in New England, but they will make up for the losses that all producers have endured since last December. These losses have been incurred on all milk, and it is my expectation that retroactive payments will be made to cover each gallon produced during that period. The dairy program included in the 2002 farm bill will continue to deliver payments almost identical to those producers received under the compact. And, although my farmers would rather see these payments taken out of the marketplace than out of the treasury, I know for many of my producers, these payments will mean the difference between staying in business, rather than calling the auctioneer. While the dairy program is by far the most important provision in the farm bill for my farmers, I am pleased that this legislation includes an 80 percent boost in funding for conservation programs. This money will increase the funding levels of programs that have proven successful, as well as establish a new program to provide incentives to producers for continuing and adopting conservation practices on working lands. Although some of us would have preferred that additional funding be provided for conservation programs focused on improving water quality and protecting wildlife habitat, this legislation offers important resources that will help agricultural producers improve their stewardship of the land. The Conferees have included a provision in the bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into stewardship agreements with State and local agencies, Indian tribes, and nongovernmental organizations and to designate special projects to enhance technical and financial assistance provided to agricultural producers. This provision will help agricultural producers meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other environmental requirements. The Senate passed farm bill had included a number of provisions that would have encouraged the development of pilot programs and new efforts to promote this kind of cooperation and partnership. Although these provisions were not included in the final bill, the Conferees have made clear in the Statement of Managers that they intend for the Secretary to use her authority to establish such partnerships. I believe such partnerships could be a valuable tool in addressing water quality issues, particularly nonpoint source pollution. There couldn't be a better time to encourage water utilities, landowners and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to work together to utilize the conservation programs to protect drinking water source areas. Farmers are great caretakers of our land. I am encouraged that we have given them greater resources with which to preserve our open space, protect our rivers and streams, and sustain the vitality of our rural communities and economies. I support the Senate's emphasis on conservation in this farm bill and believe that it will provide an important foundation for promoting sound environmental practices in agriculture. I am also delighted that this farm bill authorizes such sums as necessary for the Office of Rural Development of USDA to establish a national historic barn preservation program. This provision allows farmers to receive funds administered through States and non-profit organizations to bring older barns into productive use, or make necessary investments in functioning facilities to prevent them from falling beyond repair. I strongly urge my colleagues to appropriate the Senate authorization level of $25 million that was included in the Senate farm bill. In my home State of Vermont, the State Historic Preservation Office currently administers a small-grant program for barn preservation that has been funded by the Vermont Legislature since 1993. While this program has been very successful, applications continue to significantly outnumber the grants made through this program. Federal funding through the new national historic barn preservation program will help address the growing backlog of requests for barn preservation grants in Vermont and across the country. Historic barns are some of America's greatest national treasures, symbolizing the agricultural foundations upon which our Nation was built. Preserving these barns will not only ensure their survival for generations to come, but will also provide practical benefits to farmers, and the communities and economies that surround them. Finally, I would like to commend the Senate Conferees for their efforts on the nutrition title of the farm bill. Although the conference report includes less funding than was originally included in the Senate bill, conferees fought to include $6.4 billion over 10 years for nutrition programs. This title includes several provisions that will improve and enhance the food stamp program. Although there was resistance in the House, I am pleased that the restoration of food stamp benefits to legal immigrants was included in the final bill. The benefits that were taken away from immigrants in the 1996 Welfare bill have finally been returned to immigrants that have been in the United States for 5 years. Other important modifications to the food stamp program serve to extend transitional benefits to those leaving welfare and allow States to better align food stamp regulations with other public programs such as TANF and Medicaid. These provisions strengthen the existing food stamp program and extend eligibility to those in need of assistance. In closing, I would like to praise the Conferees for their vision in crafting this Conference Report. I believe this legislation takes a step in the right direction in improving the regional equity of America's farm policy. It is only fair that we work to help all of our farmers receive a fair price for their product regardless of size, region or commodity. I know that my farmers in Vermont work as hard as any in the Nation, and because of that they deserve the same protection against the volatile markets that others share. I'm pleased that this bill provides them with this protection. Finally, I would like to commend Majority Leader Daschle and Assistant Majority Leader Reid for their leadership in getting a contentious bill through the Senate, and for seeing the farm bill through to final passage. Majority Leader Daschle was instrumental in this effort, and I am personally most grateful.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, from the pyramids of Egypt, to the roadways and waterworks of Rome, through the great Gothic cathedrals of Europe, to today's water treatment facilities and transportation systems, civil engineers have been building societies. For the past 150 years, The American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, has served as the professional organization for, and represented, this great body of engineers within our country. The professional standards and quality of work in the civil engineering community have been ensured through the efforts of the Society. Without the efforts of our Nation's civil engineers, and those who lead within the profession, this country would not be the great Nation that it is today. With the help of ASCE and the professional expertise of the Society's membership, we are working together to ensure that our children and grandchildren have a clean and safe environment in which to live. It is with pleasure, as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, along with Senator Smith, the committee's ranking member, that I recognize, through this concurrent resolution, the 150th anniversary of the American Society of Civil Engineers. We appreciate the leadership and efforts of ASCE and its membership.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts. I could not believe what I heard today with respect to what they are trying to do. This administration is taking a look at education from the bottom up. It is ridiculous what they are doing. This is a perfect example of doing something that is so against anybody's rational way of helping people; I could not believe it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate the Senator from New Jersey bringing this matter forward at this time. As he noted, the last thing we want to do in this statute is to penalize--advertently or inadvertently--those parties that take early action voluntarily to improve the environmental performance and public health benefits of the products they produce, in this case, reformulated gasoline. Based on the facts that the Senator has presented and as they have been presented to me and my staff, it appears that Amerada Hess and HOVENSA could be disadvantaged if the anti-backsliding provisions of the bill were implemented without consideration of the factors that you have outlined. And, this situation could lead to a less competitive market in the Northeast, potentially driving up prices. It seems reasonable that refineries such as you have described, which have worked out an understanding of an appropriate adjustment with EPA in the context of the implementation of rule on mobile sources of air toxics, should be able to proceed in a similar fashion when the provisions relative to reformulated fuels--particularly, the anti- backsliding provisions in Section 834--are implemented. EPA has informed my staff that they would interpret the provisions in question as providing them with adequate authority to do so. It would seem logical that such authority would be used as it was in the case of the rule, regardless of whether the situation is a state ban or a Federal ban on MTBE.

Mr. JEFFORDS. As the Senator knows, there is no Federal preemption of State law contained in the Subtitle C. In fact, Section 833 of the bill, in Subsection (d), states specifically that enactment of the federal MTBE ban contained in the preceding subsection will ``have no effect on the law in effect on the day before the date of enactment if this Act regarding the authority of States to limit the use of [MTBE] in motor vehicle fuel.'' And Section 834, in which the anti-backsliding provisions are contained, includes a savings clause (Subsection (d)) that states ``[n]othing in this section is intended to affect or prejudice any legal claims or actions with respect to regulations promulgated by the Administrator prior to enactment of this Act regarding emissions of toxic air pollutants from motor vehicles.'' Taken together, these provisions are a clear indication that it is the intent of the Senate not to preempt the state laws that were the cause for the baseline adjustment granted under the MSAT rule or to affect any legal claims or actions related to the MSAT regulations, including the sections in that rule providing for baseline adjustments. Furthermore, as I observed in my prior response, fairness would dictate that the result should be the same whether MTBE is banned as a result of this bill or as a result of state law.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to state my support for the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Fitzgerald, and to express my extreme disappointment that it was not agreed to by this body. This very sensible amendment would have clarified that the incineration of municipal solid waste will not be treated as renewable energy for purposes of the renewable portfolio standard and for the Federal renewable energy purchase requirement. This issue arises because the burning of landfill waste in incinerators is one method of producing electricity. It produces only a minimal percentage of our electricity, but creates almost one quarter of the nation's mercury emissions, and significant levels of dioxin. Dioxin, a known carcinogen, cause impairment of immune, nervous, reproductive and endocrine systems, even at extremely low concentrations. Infants are particularly sensitive to dioxin because of dioxin concentrations in human breast milk. Studies of infants show up to 65 times the maximum dioxin exposure recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency. The National Academy of Science has found that although waste incinerators have reduced their dioxin air emissions, total dioxin releases in fly ash, bottom ash and other revenues have not decreased. According to the most recent EPA data, 2.2 tons of mercury were emitted from garbage incinerators in 2000. This accounts for almost 20 percent of the nation's mercury emissions. Toxic amounts of mercury exist in our lakes, rivers and groundwater. Mercury causes neurological damage and birth defects, resulting in developmental delays and cognitive defects. The renewable portfolio standard contained in the bill is intended to provide incentives and market support for the production of clean, renewable energy technologies. These include wind, solar, geothermal and biolass energy. One of the primary reasons for promoting these energy sources is that they give us clean power. They provide electricity that is free of the toxic wastes and emissions associated with many of our traditional fuel supplies. Including the incineration of municipal solid waste in this category flies in the face of reason. If we want to keep mercury flowing into our streams and rivers, we can just pour more money into coal-fired power plants. An energy source that cripples our infants and causes cancer is not something we should support under the umbrella of renewable energy. I am aware that incinerators have made significant strides in reducing toxic emissions. However, as I have stated above, municipal solid waste incinerators still account for 20 percent of nationwide mercury emissions, and still contribute to the release of highly toxic dioxins. It is completely inappropriate to incentivize the continued release of these toxic substances as part of a provision aimed at clean, renewable energy. Neither the amendment nor the underlying bill language would in any way undermine or hamper the current incineration of municipal solid waste, and would not prohibit or discourage new incineration. Neither the amendment nor the underlying bill language will not create new regulations regarding incineration of municipal solid waste, nor change existing ones. All this amendment would have done is ensure that municipal solid waste is not encourage as a renewable energy resource. Including energy sources that result in highly toxic emissions does however undermine the foundation of the renewable portfolio standard, which is to help clean, renewable energies to compete against other energy sources. Mr. President, I am greatly disappointed that this amendment was defeated but intend to address this issue further in conference.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and celebrate the United Way of Chittenden County on the occasion of their 60th Anniversary. Many Vermonters have worked tirelessly for this organization throughout the years and I take great pride in what they have accomplished. Since Henry Way founded the organization under the name of the Burlington Community Chest in 1942, the United Way has brought vital services to generations of Vermonters and earned its reputation as a cornerstone of Chittenden County's collaborative community development. Vermonters must never take for granted the key role the United Way plays in the well-being of our local communities. Sustainable, grassroots solutions to complex problems do not come easily. In partnership with citizens, businesses, services, State and Federal Government, the United Way helps to fund such worthy organizations as the Girl Scouts, YMCA, Red Cross, Salvation Army, and many more. Communities throughout the United States are served well by their local United Way chapters. If founders Henry Way, C.P. Hasbrook, and I. Munn Boardman were alive today they would be proud of the organizational strength the United Way has built through the years. I commend the board, staff, contributors, and volunteers for their generous efforts in securing crucial resources for their communities. The legacy of these groundbreaking Vermonters is honored by sixty years of tenacious work. This proud history continues today under the apt leadership of Gretchen Morse. I am sure the United Way of Chittenden County will continue to be an example for other charitable organizations throughout the country. The United Way is sure to meet their community's challenges in the next 60 years with the vision, leadership and perseverance demonstrated today. I extend my hearty congratulations.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is very complicated stuff, all these things trading around and all that. It is very difficult for people to understand. It sounds good. I think under the circumstances, even though it is the opposition, the administration is somewhere we should look, in the form of the Department of Energy, as to what the facts are. If you do that, you will find that the facts are quite different from those represented by the Senator from Arizona and obviously the Senator from Oklahoma. It is also clear that in different areas of the country, this works differently. It depends on what your production is, what is available to you in renewables and all that. I will rely upon the Department of Energy and expect, with this administration being in control of that Department, that the facts they give us ought to be fairly accurate. It seems to me we have brought forth these arguments several times now. However, I will reiterate that the U.S. Department of Energy, in its most recent analysis, has found that a 10-percent renewable energy requirement will, by the year 2020, save the American consumers up to $3 billion, save consumers up to $3 billion in electricity costs. Imposing a Federal renewable energy mandate of 10 percent will cost $3 billion less for consumers by the year 2020 as compared to business as usual. This result is an overall cost savings to consumers from 2002 to 2020 of $13.2 billion. This is what the most recent studies of the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration have found. It escapes me why we are spending so much time arguing about cost. I have heard some of my colleagues claim that the cost to consumers will be off the charts. This is at odds with the repeated findings of the U.S. Department of Energy of this administration. A number of my colleagues have referred to Energy Information Administration statistics to the effect that renewable energy will cost Americans $88 billion. However, these EIA numbers are referring to the gross cost of the price of renewable energy, not the increased cost to consumers of using renewable energy versus using other forms of energy. The relevant question is not whether, if you bought only renewable energy, it would add up to a total cost of $88 billion. The question is, How much more is that amount than what you would be paying anyway from fossil fuel or other energy sources without a renewable energy mandate? As I have stated, the studies completed in February of this year by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which are consistent with the previous studies, say that under a 10-percent renewable energy mandate, consumer costs will actually go down by close to $3 billion per year by the year 2020, compared to energy costs if no renewable energy mandate existed. I will also point out that although the 1.5-cent cap Senator Nickles is now proposing was indeed the amount contained in the bill put forward by the Clinton administration, that bill also would have imposed a far more aggressive renewable mandate than the one currently in the Senate bill. Under the Clinton administration's bill, renewable energy would have been required to reach 7.5 percent by the year 2010. This is compared to only a roughly 4-percent requirement by 2010 in the energy bill currently before us. The renewable energy provision currently in the bill does not even get to an actual 10-percent renewable energy standard by the year 2020. By the time all of the various exceptions and deductions are added in, the amount of mandated renewable energy required in this bill by the year 2020 is actually closer to 5 percent. This amount is disappointingly close to what American business is likely to achieve anyway with no additional support from the Federal Government. I must say, I find the continued attempt to weaken this marginal requirement baffling. I, along with my colleagues, have repeatedly made the argument on the floor for the many benefits of renewable energy. These include environmental and health benefits which have not been taken into consideration. They include making our American businesses competitive in a booming European market in wind and other renewable energy. This should be the example at which we are looking. As the EIA has shown, they include benefits to the American consumer, ultimately making the costs to consumers actually decrease. Few of my colleagues dispute these benefits. Even those supporting this amendment have recognized the great national benefits to promoting renewable energy. It seems painfully difficult for us to change our old ways of looking at things and to take steps that will bring these modern and beneficial energy sources to our door. These arguments over the price of cost caps are just another attempt to dismantle the existing renewable energy position. The Senate has already voted several times against attempts to destroy this position, and I hope we will recognize the amendment for what it is--another side-door attempt to do just that. Different States have different problems. Oil-producing States naturally want to sell all the oil they can. If we look at the program as it is, look at the advantages it has, and look at the end results as reported by the Department of Energy, that it will save money in the years ahead, I say this bill should stay as it is. I urge my colleagues to join me in keeping this really modest provision in the bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I am happy to yield.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I think it is 7.5 percent by 2010. Other than that, I stand by the speech I made and the results I said will be there and our understanding of the bill, as the U.S. Department of Energy understands it.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I think the times that it went into effect were different. It depends on how you compare it. I stand by my statement.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to finish. We have had these battles since I came to Congress in 1975. We recognized at that time we were so vulnerable with respect to our oil supplies that it was essential we put ourselves on a course that could make us much more independent. We have made very little progress in that time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine, let me finish quickly.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have a few more comments. Logic should make this obvious. If you can provide energy that does not cost you any money--solar and wind, for example--is it not logical to put it in the mix? That is all we are saying. The Department of Energy agrees with us and says it will save money. I understand those from the oil-producing States do not want this provision, but common sense tells us it is the best thing we can do. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to recognize the outstanding contribution that has been made by Rabbi Solomon Goldberg to the Rutland, VT, Jewish Community and to his community at large. Rabbi Goldberg, retiring after 42 years of service, has been a leader, mentor, and teacher at the Rutland Jewish Center, the regional anchor for Jewish life in central Vermont. His wisdom, compassion, and spiritual leadership have guided hundreds of families in Jewish tradition. He has taken his congregation through the arc of life experiences; from birth to bar and bat mitzvah to marriage and through memorial, his kindness and strength have been a constant source of support for all. Rabbi Goldberg has also been a fine educator. He has dedicated himself to the work of interfaith teaching, learning and communication, which are so important to the overall understanding and peace between people of different faiths. I know that he intends, even in retirement, to continue this fine work and I commend and encourage him in those endeavors. He is a fine American, and I wish he, his wife Marilyn and their family, all the best as they enjoy this transition in their lives.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I applaud Senator Baucus for his efforts to enhance the flow of revenues into the highway trust fund. In particular, his suggestion that the time has come to redirect the 2.5 cents in ethanol tax that is now going into the general fund back to the highway trust fund is both timely and constructive. As we reauthorize the surface transportation program over the coming months, I look forward to working with Senator Baucus and others on the broader issue of the Nation's shifting fuel mix and the implications of that trend on the highway trust fund.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of Earth Day to introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2002. This legislation will increase recycling, reduce litter, save energy, create jobs, decrease the generation of waste and proliferation of landfills, and supply recyclable materials for a high-demand market. The estimated 1999 recycling rate for aluminum, glass and plastic beverage containers was 41 percent when measured by units and 30 percent when measured by weight. This is unacceptable. We have many laws in place holding industries responsible for their actions; the beverage industry should not be exempt. The arguments for increasing the beverage container recycling rate to 80 percent could not be more timely. This redemption rate would save the equivalent of 640 million barrels of oil in the next decade. Based on 1999 figures, recycled containers accounted for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 4,093,000 metric tons, or about 79 pounds for each of 103.9 million households in the U.S. Analysis shows that land filling the containers recycled in 1999 would have required the use of about 20 million cubic yards of landfill space. A single landfill of this size, with a depth of 300 feet, would cover an area of about 40 acres. Recycling is an easy way to ease our dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and conserve natural resources. Ten States, including Vermont, attest to the success of deposit legislation, commonly called bottle bills. Vermont, whose law passed in 1972, has one of the highest redemption rates in the nation, 95 to 98 percent of deposit-bearing containers are recycled. The popularity behind the issue grows every year; thirty bottle bills were introduced this year in State legislatures across this country. The National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2002 is a new approach to the traditional bottle bill legislation, which prescribes specific roles and responsibilities for retailers and distributors. Some believe that these prescriptive provisions constrain the industry from innovating more cost-effective solutions to the beverage container management challenge. The National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act sets a performance standard which industry must meet and allows industry the freedom to design the most efficient deposit-return program to reach the standard. By providing beverage companies the flexibility to structure and operate their own container recovery programs, this legislation simply extends the beverage company's ``supply chain'' to include the management of empty containers after consumption. This approach is appealing because it reduces the administrative burden on government and takes full advantage of the business skills of industry. Specifically, the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act would: establish a measurable performance standard of 80% recovery of used, empty beverage containers for recycling or reuse; establish a minimum refundable deposit, of 10 cents, as the economic incentive for consumers to recycle; require beverage brand-owners, as a condition of sale of their product, to develop and submit to the Environmental Protection Agency a Beverage Container Management Plan, within 180 days of the law's implementation; establish consequences for failing to submit, implement and operate the approved Program and achieve the legislated Performance Standard; and establish provisions for evaluation and monitoring of the industry's performance. I look forward to holding a hearing on this legislation this summer in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to thank Senators Dodd, Snowe, DeWine, Breaux, Reed, Rockefeller, and Collins for their hard work and dedication to helping provide working families with access to high-quality child care, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important legislation. Senator Dodd and I have been working together on this and other critical issues affecting children for over twenty years now. And, I look forward to continue working with him and my esteemed colleagues as we move forward in helping children and families across the country. A recent Administration report reveals that as many as 75 percent of children under the age of five in this country are in some form of child care arrangement. And, as more mothers of young children enter the workforce, working families need even greater access to higher quality child care. In my State of Vermont, approximately 87 percent of Vermont children under the age of six live with two working parents, and only 56 percent of the estimated need for child care in Vermont is met through regulated care. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the quality of early child care and education has a significant effect on children's health and development and their readiness for school. According to a recent study, children participating in quality, comprehensive early care and education programs had a 29 percent higher rate of high school completion, a 41 percent reduction in special education placement, a 40 percent reduction in the rate of grade retention, a 33 percent lower rate of juvenile arrest, and a 42 percent reduction in arrest for a violent offense. All other industrialized nations acknowledge the great value of early care and education, and make the care and education of toddlers and pre-schoolers a mandatory part of their public education system, and pay for it. Unfortunately, the United States does not. Quality child care is available in the United States to young parents, but in many cases, it costs more than ten thousand dollars per year. This is almost twice the cost of going to many public colleges. Earlier last week, the President proposed an initiative to strengthen early learning. He stated that he wants every child to enter school ready to learn. I am pleased that the President is making the care and education of our youngest children a priority. However, if we really want to help all children enter school ready to learn, then we need to actually provide the resources to do so. The costs of quality child care exceed what most working families can afford. Yet, unbelievably, the President has proposed NO additional funding to help families gain access to quality child care. This just doesn't make any sense. Many States across the country are working hard to improve the quality and accessibility of child care, but they simply do not have the resources to provide sufficient access and quality. For example, the State of Vermont spends approximately $33 million to provide working families with access to child care and to improve the quality of child care around the State. For a small State like Vermont, this is a lot of money, but is hardly sufficient to provide the type of access and quality necessary to make sure all kids enter school ready to learn. The State would need an additional $40 to $50 million to effectuate real change. And further, due to the recent economic downturn, a majority of the States has reported revenues well below expected levels. Accordingly, while the States want to do more to further the quality and accessibility of child care, many States will actually have less money to spend on helping families with quality care and education. Again, the President has proposed no additional funding to help States provide families with quality child care. On the contrary, we must significantly increase funding for child care to help States and local communities provide this vital support to working families and their children. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the new Access to High Quality Child Care Act of 2002. The 2002 ACCESS Act not only helps provide families with greater access to child care, but also significantly raises the bar on the quality of child care in this country. The 2002 ACCESS Act provides States with real resources to help them improve the quality of child care for working families. It allows for great flexibility, yet holds States accountable for making real quality improvements. Research shows that qualified and well-trained providers are critical to supporting and enhancing the cognitive and social development of children in child care. The 2002 ACCESS Act helps States strengthen the quality of the child care workforce by setting aside a dedicated portion of funds to support State initiatives that improve both the qualifications and the compensation of child care providers. The ACCESS Act also helps States increase child care provider reimbursement rates to more accurately reflect the true cost of care. It helps States provide training and technical assistance to informal and family child care providers as well as center-based providers. It helps States develop and expand resource and referral services. It helps families gain access to quality child care for infants and toddlers, and children with special needs. It provides oversight to child care centers situated on Federal property. And, the ACCESS Act also helps States leverage funding to provide technical assistance, and share in the cost of construction and improvement of child care facilities and equipment. I believe that we all recognize that the foundation for learning begins in the earliest years of life. However, a failure to nurture development in these early years is a lost opportunity forever. The 2002 ACCESS Act provides States and local communities with a real opportunity to nurture that development and improve the quality of care for our youngest children in this country so that all of our children enter school ready to learn. I urge my colleagues to support this bold, yet critical initiative, so that indeed, every child truly has an opportunity to learn.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the POPs Implementation Act of 2002. POPs, or persistent organic pollutants, are chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify through the food chain, and are toxic to humans. These substances travel across international boundaries, creating a circle of pollution requiring a global solution. In April 2001, one year ago, President Bush announced his support for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, POPs, and in May 2001, the U.S. signed the Convention. I share the President's enthusiasm for this sound and workable treaty that targets chemicals detrimental to human health and the environment. The Stockholm Convention seeks the elimination or restriction of production and use of all intentionally produced POPs. The POPs that are to be initially eliminated include the pesticides aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene, and the industrial chemicals hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs. Use of the pesticide DDT is limited to disease control until safe, effective, and affordable alternatives are identified. The Convention also seeks the continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination of releases of unintentionally produced POPs such as dioxins and furans. Today, I am introducing a bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to implement the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the Protocol on POPs to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. These are the first amendments to TSCA since its enactment in October 1976. Currently in the U.S., the registrations for nine of the twelve POPs covered by the Stockholm Convention have been canceled, the manufacture of PCBs has been banned, and stringent controls have been placed on the release of the other covered chemicals. The POPs Implementation Act of 2002 provides EPA with the authority, which it currently does not have, to prohibit the manufacture for export of the twelve POPs and POPs that are identified in the future. In addition, this legislation provides a science-based process consistent with the Stockholm Convention for listing additional chemicals exhibiting POPs characteristics, thereby attempting to avoid the further production and use of POPs. To assist in this goal, the National Academy of Sciences is directed to develop new strategies to screen candidate POPs and new sampling methodologies to identify future POPs. Although a previous EPA draft included a mechanism for adding new chemicals, the Administration's current POPs implementation package does not. The Stockholm Convention was not intended to be a static agreement, as it explicitly provides for the additional of new chemicals. If we are to be most effective in globally reducing these dangerous chemicals, we must fully commit to this treaty.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to thank Senators Dodd, Snowe, DeWine, Breaux, Reed, Rockefeller, and Collins for their hard work and dedication to helping provide working families with access to high-quality child care, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important legislation. Senator Dodd and I have been working together on this and other critical issues affecting children for over twenty years now. And, I look forward to continue working with him and my esteemed colleagues as we move forward in helping children and families across the country. A recent Administration report reveals that as many as 75 percent of children under the age of five in this country are in some form of child care arrangement. And, as more mothers of young children enter the workforce, working families need even greater access to higher quality child care. In my State of Vermont, approximately 87 percent of Vermont children under the age of six live with two working parents, and only 56 percent of the estimated need for child care in Vermont is met through regulated care. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the quality of early child care and education has a significant effect on children's health and development and their readiness for school. According to a recent study, children participating in quality, comprehensive early care and education programs had a 29 percent higher rate of high school completion, a 41 percent reduction in special education placement, a 40 percent reduction in the rate of grade retention, a 33 percent lower rate of juvenile arrest, and a 42 percent reduction in arrest for a violent offense. All other industrialized nations acknowledge the great value of early care and education, and make the care and education of toddlers and pre-schoolers a mandatory part of their public education system, and pay for it. Unfortunately, the United States does not. Quality child care is available in the United States to young parents, but in many cases, it costs more than ten thousand dollars per year. This is almost twice the cost of going to many public colleges. Earlier last week, the President proposed an initiative to strengthen early learning. He stated that he wants every child to enter school ready to learn. I am pleased that the President is making the care and education of our youngest children a priority. However, if we really want to help all children enter school ready to learn, then we need to actually provide the resources to do so. The costs of quality child care exceed what most working families can afford. Yet, unbelievably, the President has proposed NO additional funding to help families gain access to quality child care. This just doesn't make any sense. Many States across the country are working hard to improve the quality and accessibility of child care, but they simply do not have the resources to provide sufficient access and quality. For example, the State of Vermont spends approximately $33 million to provide working families with access to child care and to improve the quality of child care around the State. For a small State like Vermont, this is a lot of money, but is hardly sufficient to provide the type of access and quality necessary to make sure all kids enter school ready to learn. The State would need an additional $40 to $50 million to effectuate real change. And further, due to the recent economic downturn, a majority of the States has reported revenues well below expected levels. Accordingly, while the States want to do more to further the quality and accessibility of child care, many States will actually have less money to spend on helping families with quality care and education. Again, the President has proposed no additional funding to help States provide families with quality child care. On the contrary, we must significantly increase funding for child care to help States and local communities provide this vital support to working families and their children. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the new Access to High Quality Child Care Act of 2002. The 2002 ACCESS Act not only helps provide families with greater access to child care, but also significantly raises the bar on the quality of child care in this country. The 2002 ACCESS Act provides States with real resources to help them improve the quality of child care for working families. It allows for great flexibility, yet holds States accountable for making real quality improvements. Research shows that qualified and well-trained providers are critical to supporting and enhancing the cognitive and social development of children in child care. The 2002 ACCESS Act helps States strengthen the quality of the child care workforce by setting aside a dedicated portion of funds to support State initiatives that improve both the qualifications and the compensation of child care providers. The ACCESS Act also helps States increase child care provider reimbursement rates to more accurately reflect the true cost of care. It helps States provide training and technical assistance to informal and family child care providers as well as center-based providers. It helps States develop and expand resource and referral services. It helps families gain access to quality child care for infants and toddlers, and children with special needs. It provides oversight to child care centers situated on Federal property. And, the ACCESS Act also helps States leverage funding to provide technical assistance, and share in the cost of construction and improvement of child care facilities and equipment. I believe that we all recognize that the foundation for learning begins in the earliest years of life. However, a failure to nurture development in these early years is a lost opportunity forever. The 2002 ACCESS Act provides States and local communities with a real opportunity to nurture that development and improve the quality of care for our youngest children in this country so that all of our children enter school ready to learn. I urge my colleagues to support this bold, yet critical initiative, so that indeed, every child truly has an opportunity to learn.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would first like to thank Senator Dodd for all his hard work on this very important bill. This legislation will help ensure that the problems that occurred during the 2000 elections will not happen again, and hopefully increase the number of Americans that participate in the most sacred right of a democracy, voting. I would like to take this opportunity though to discuss the provisional voting section of the bill and its effect on the affidavit voting system we have in Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS. In Vermont when a person arrives at the polling place to vote and their name does not appear on the voter checklist, even though they believe they have properly registered, we have a system that would allow them to cast a ballot. The voter completes an affidavit form swearing that they had properly applied but were not added to the voter checklist. The form is reviewed by the Board of Civil Authority at the polling place and unless the information appears false the person is allowed to cast a ballot. If the information appears to be false, the Board of Civil Authority will not allow the person to cast a ballot and refers them to a local judge to get added to the voter checklist for the election that day. The ballots cast this way are counted exactly like the other ballots and included in the final totals. The information from the approved affidavits is immediately used to update the voter checklist. My question to you Senator Dodd is that while this system is not called a provisional balloting system it appears to me that the affidavit voting system conforms to all the requirements in this legislation, and therefore the State of Vermont would already have satisfied the provisional balloting requirements of the bill?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate Senator Dodd's clarification of this issue, and look forward with working with him to ensure enactment of this important legislation. Maine's Same Day Registration