Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we will have before us over the next several weeks a historic opportunity to change the direction of energy use in this country. I know you will hear from many of my colleagues that the events of September 11 have changed how we must view energy, and on that point we must all surely agree. An increasing reliance on energy imports from politically unstable areas of the world is not in America's best interests, and we must reassert our dominance over our own energy production and innovation. One of the most important ways to achieve this is to wean ourselves from foreign oil in our transportation sector, and to diversify the energy base for our electricity generation into clean, domestically produced renewable resources. We have before us a piece of comprehensive energy legislation that quite frankly is one of the best to emerge from this body in some time. Senators Daschle and Bingaman have brought forward, in their comprehensive amendment to S. 517, legislation that would spur the development of renewable energy resources, that will advance efficiency in our transportation, building and electricity sectors, and that will begin to address global climate change. I support many of the provisions of this legislation, particularly those that encourage the production of renewable energy, and those that provide additional funding for energy assistance to low income households. As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have considerable interest in several areas within the committee's jurisdiction. These include issues relating to regulation of commercial nuclear power plants, and to air and water quality issues such as global climate change, the use of reformulated fuels, and air emissions from the transportation sector. I support the bill's provisions on efficiency standards for homes, schools, and public buildings, as well as the efficiency standards for appliances and other consumer and commercial products. I also support increased funding for the Low Income Energy Assistance, LIHEAP, program, and for expanded R&D for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting efficiency and renewables. I look forward to inclusion of the tax provisions passed out of the Finance Committee, particularly those provisions which extend and expand the production tax credit for renewables, and provide credit for alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have particular interest in those provisions of the bill which address the protection of our environment through reductions of emissions and pollutants affecting air and water quality. Earlier this Congress, the EPW Committee reported out S. 950, the Federal Reformulated Fuels Act. This bill provided recognition of the need to reduce MTBE contamination of water supplies and enhance fuel suppliers' flexibility in meeting market demand. We have also recognized the need to grow the renewables share of the transportation fuels market. I commend the leader, Senator Daschle, for convening a broad and diverse group of stakeholders to craft an agreement on these issues in the fuels section of S. 517. I support the provisions in the Daschle bill that will raise CAFE standards, a long overdue action that will dramatically decrease the amount of gasoline consumed on our highways. Both the reformulated fuels and CAFE provisions will benefit the environment, and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign fuels. I am supportive of the provisions in the Daschle bill that set us on a path to seriously address global climate change. I am however deeply concerned that administration of the greenhouse gas database is not placed with the EPA, the agency most clearly qualified to run this program. No other agency has the experience with air emissions data or capability to run such a program more effectively. The agency already collects detailed carbon dioxide emissions information from the utility sector, and leads the Federal agencies in preparation of the national inventory, pursuant to the Global Climate Protection Act of 1978 and other authorities. Placing this responsibility elsewhere in the Federal bureaucracy seems duplicative and illogical. As chairman of the Environment Committee, the environmental and public health impacts of emissions are on the top of my list of concerns. These issues are not directly addressed in S. 517. As this session moves forward, the EPW Committee will be considering legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which is responsible for approximately one-third of U.S. emissions. I support the inclusion in the electricity section of the bill of a net metering standard, which would give consumers credit for their own production of solar or wind energy. I am however concerned that the bill fails to include provisions, either through a public benefits fund or an electric efficiency mandate, to ensure the continuation of programs to encourage electricity efficiency innovations by utilities. Efficiency in electricity generation is a vital component of consuming less fuel, and lack of a provision addressing this issue is a major failing in the legislation. I am also concerned that the definition of biomass in various places in S. 597 does not exclude incineration of municipal solid waste, a process which results in emissions of mercury and sulfur dioxide. Measures which seek to encourage increased use of clean renewable energy should not provide new incentives for incineration of municipal solid waste. One of the most important aspects of the legislation is its provisions for increasing the use of renewable energy in our nation. Unlike the House bill, Senator Daschle's bill includes a renewable portfolio standard which will guarantee that a greater portion of America's electricity needs are met by renewable energy. To date, the administration, like the House, has not endorsed this most basic of concepts, and I strongly commend Senator Daschle and Senator Bingaman for stepping forward on this crucial issue. This notwithstanding, I cannot support the Daschle renewable portfolio standard. My primary concern with his provision is that it does not go far enough to provide the level of environmental protection and market stimulation that a national renewable portfolio standard should provide. S. 597, Senator Daschle's bill, contains a renewable portfolio standard requiring the generation of 10 percent of renewable energy electricity by the year 2020. While moving in the right direction, this will not provide the level of investment and growth achievable by my amendment. We must be aggressive in finding alternatives to fuels that pollute, or present unacceptable security risks. I will be introducing an amendment today that will ensure that by the year 2020, 20 percent of the electricity Americans use will be supplied by clean and safe renewable energy from wind, solar, biomass or geothermal sources. The United States today relies heavily on coal, nuclear power, and natural gas to generate its electricity. Yet the United States is also blessed with an abundance of renewable energy resources including wind power, intense solar energy, vast sources of biomass, and geothermal energy. These renewable energy resources do not pollute, they need not be bought from foreign markets, they do not leave behind piles of toxic wastes, and they will not run out. Because renewable energy has been with us forever, we tend to disregard it. We tend to think of it as too simplistic to meet our modern energy needs. Like this windmill pictured from the old American West, we tend to think of wind, and other forms of renewable energy as quaint, but outdated vestiges of our past. We could not be more wrong. According to the U.S. Department of Energy wind energy has been the fastest growing source of electricity generation in the world in the 1990s. Today, the U.S. wind industry generates about 3.5 billion kilowatt- hours of electricity each year, enough to meet the annual electricity needs of 1 million people. The costs of wind energy in the United has dropped more than 80 percent in the past two decades, with today's prices being competitive with electricity being delivered by fossil and other fuels. As you can see in this picture of a modern windmill farm in Texas, times have changed. In Texas alone, wind power generation has more than doubled in the past three years, and estimates are that up to 1,000 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity will be operating by the end of this year. This jump is attributed in large part to a State renewable energy standard signed into law by Governor Bush in 1999. Throughout the country, utilities are installing wind turbines and other renewable energy facilities as customer demand for clean energy grows, and costs drop. These pictures illustrate but a few examples, such as this wind farm in Colorado; or the Northern States Power wind farm in Minnesota; the Vanscycle Ridge wind farm in Oregon; this wind facility providing electricity to the people of Traverse City, MI. Wind production can be especially beneficial in rural and remote areas, as we can see by this wind turbine in remote Kotzebue, AK, which displaces diesel fuel generation. Geothermal, biomass and solar are also making increasing contributions to local and regional electricity generation. This Nevada geothermal power plant produces electricity for 100,000 people. This geothermal facility in California has produced the energy equivalent of over 250 million barrels of oil, and currently provides electricity to over one million people. This geothermal plant in Hawaii provides electricity for 60,000 people. This modern complex in Lousiville, KY is heated and cooled by geothermal heat pumps. Energy produced from biomass has the potential to account for almost as much renewable energy electricity production as wind. Here a biomass facility in Shasta County, CA converts wood wastes into electricity. This tractor is harvesting switchgrass in Charington Valley, IA where farmers planted over 4,000 acres of switchgrass, which when burned will generate a continuing 35 megawatt flow of clean burning energy. If successful the project will be scaled up to 50,000 acres and involve 200 to 500 farmers. This bioenergy plant in Fayetteville, AR is testing new bioconversion processes. This photovoltaic charging station in Tampa, FL recharges batteries for hybrid electric vehicles, then contribute excess generated power back to the electric grid. This cattle rancher in Idaho uses wind energy to power his home and ranch under a program sponsored by the Idaho Power Company. This shows the solar array at BP Solarex headquarters in Frederick, MD. BP solar, a subsidiary of BP International, is a leading world developer of photovoltaic technology, with offices and manufacturing sites around the world. This solar concentration system at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico produces utility grade electric power. Despite these exciting advances in U.S. renewable energy, the United States and American businesses still lag far behind advances being made in Europe and the rest of the world. Compared to the roughly 1 million American homes that are served by renewable energy, installed international wind capacity is enough to satisfy the electricity needs of 23 million people. The U.S. wind industry is actively seeking to utilize marketing opportunities outside the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Wind Technology Center, these prospective wind energy markets could translate into several billion dollars in sales for the U.S. wind industry. U.S. firms have already installed turbines in Canada, The Netherlands, Mexico, South America, Spain, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, 90 percent of the world's wind turbine manufacturers are European, with a combined annual turnover of more than one billion Euros. These potential markets are only likely to increase. As the European Wind Energy Association states: Whereas the cost of most forms of energy are bound to rise with time, the costs of wind energy are actually coming down. Offshore European wind projects at various stages in the pipeline amount to more than 5,000 megawatts. Even accounting for the understandable enthusiasm of those in the industry, it is clear that both the international and American wind energy markets have the potential for great expansion. The faster expansion in international markets is due in great measure to governmental policies that favor such expansion. As the U.S. Department of Energy states, Wind energy is the fastest growing source of electricity generation in the world in the 1990's. However, the majority of growth has been in Europe, where government policies and high conventional energy costs favor the use of wind energy. Even with advances to date, American renewables still account for little more than 2 percent of total U.S. electricity production. There is more than enough room for them in the U.S. energy market. The United States is the world's largest single energy market, representing more than 25 percent of world energy consumption. The real question is the extent to which we in this country will take advantage of our abundant renewable resources, and the assistance we will be willing to provide our American companies in competing in this market. Are we going to allow American companies to miss the boat? Is the United States going to lag behind while the rest of the world makes investments, develops infrastructure and outpaces us in the profitable manufacture and production of renewable technologies? Will we once more, as we are now for fossil fuels, be dependent on other nations for the means to provide our domestic energy, but this time because the technology and manufacture of renewable energy rests largely in other countries? My amendment would provide an important step in providing market strength to U.S. renewable industries. It would create a renewable portfolio standard under which utilities would be required to gradually increase the amount of electricity from renewable energy resources sold to consumers, starting at 5 percent by 2005, and leveling out at 20 percent in 2020. This will be achieved by a system of renewable energy credits, that electric retailers can either generate themselves, or buy from someone else who has generated electricity from a renewable resource. Those selling tradeable credits to the retailers need not themselves be connected into the grid. So long as someone has generated electricity from a listed renewable energy resource, and either used it himself or sold it to someone else to use, he can sell the credit to a retail electric supplier. My amendment would allow credits from existing renewable energy production, thereby encouraging expansion of existing facilities as well as creation of new sources of renewable energy. It would be hydropower neutral in that it would require the use of renewable energy credits to offset only production of non-hydropower electricity sold by the retailer. It would define renewable energy to include wind, solar, geothermal, landfill gas, certain biomass, and incremental hydropower added by increasing efficiency. It would not include industries which generate substantial amounts of pollution such as incineration of municipal solid waste, as renewable energy for which credits could be obtained. This flexible, market-driven system, will help reduce market barriers for renewable energy, and stimulate domestic investment in new renewable energy throughout the nation. It will allow our companies to grow domestically, and establish sufficient stability to compete successfully in the world market. It will encourage the successful, long-term integration of these important renewable technologies into the energy sector, and will help grow the U.S. renewable energy industry into a world leader of renewable energy technology. My amendment will be good for the environment. It will improve air quality, by reducing use of fossil fuels which produce nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions. These harmful pollutants are linked to smog, acid rain, respiratory illness, and water contamination. This is an urgent issue. As reported in today's Washington Post, a study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes that long-term exposure to fine particles of air pollution from coal-fired powerplants, factories, and diesel trucks increases an individual's risk of dying from lung cancer by 12 percent. This is particularly important to my home State of Vermont. We in the Northeast live downwind from virtually the entire nation. The prevailing wind patterns bring ozone-causing nitrogen oxide straight to our front door. There are days I can stand on Mount Mansfield, and not be able to make out the water tower on Mount Elmore barely 20 miles away. My amendment would cut carbon dioxide emissions, a major contributor to global warming, by almost 19 percent, or 137 million metric tons by 2020. The Daschle 10-percent standard would achieve only a 7-percent reduction, or 56 million metric tons. A 20-percent renewable energy standard that stimulates investment in renewable energy will be good for our economy. It will create thousands of new, high quality jobs and bring significant new investment to rural communities. It will create an estimated $80 million in new capitol investment here at home and create new opportunities in the manufacturing and high-tech sectors. The market demand for renewable energy will also bring jobs to rural areas, where it is estimated that wind energy alone could provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers, ranchers and rural landowners, and $5 billion in new property tax revenues to communities. My amendment will advance national security. Renewable energy technologies will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, alleviating pressure on those markets. Because they are domestically produced, they will reduce our vulnerability to foreign threats. Because they are distributed in nature, they will reduce our reliance on centralized resources and the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure to terrorist attack. Following the attacks of September 11, we can no longer afford to take this responsibility lightly. Mr. President, on September 19, James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Robert C. McFarlane, former National Security Advisor to President Reagan, sent a letter to myself and other Members of this body urging in the strongest terms that we take immediate action to address our energy security. Among other recommendations, they state that they ``urge the Energy Committee to immediately adopt the Renewable Portfolio Standard. . . .'' I ask unanimous consent that this letter, signed by all three, be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. A 20-percent renewable energy standard by 2020 is affordable. The Department of Energy's information administration found a 20-percent renewable energy standard by 2020 would result in only modest increases in consumer electricity bills of up to 4 percent as compared to prices if no renewable energy standard were imposed. Polls have indicated Americans are willing to accept such moderate price increases in exchange for the benefits derived from the greater renewable energy production. These same EIA studies showed that while households will experience modest increases in electric bills, a 20-percent renewable energy standard will actually reduce overall energy costs, which include the costs attributable to home heating and commercial and industrial energy consumption by approximately 0.1 percent by the year 2020. With these very modest costs, the provisions in my amendment will increase renewable energy production by a total of roughly 2 million megawatts. Higher numbers are distinctly possible. In the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, for example, if every new home built in California subdivisions each year had photovoltaic energy roofs similar to the ones shown in this chart, they would produce the equivalent of a major 400- to 500-megawatt powerplant every year. This amendment is the right thing to do. It is supported by the Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, along with hundreds of businesses, associations, labor and consumer advocacy groups, environmental groups, faith-based organizations, academies, and local communities. I ask unanimous consent a list of approximately 450 groups and individuals supporting my amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. My standard is achievable. To date, 12 States have successfully enacted renewable standards, several of which exceed the 20 percent by 2020 standard of my amendment. States and utilities, recognizing the cost and environmental benefits of clean energy, are setting goals similar to mine for their use of renewable energy. Governor Pataki of New York, for example, recently ordered all agencies in the State of New York to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2010. While good as far as it goes, Senator Daschle's amendment would result in about half of the renewable energy generation that would be achieved under my amendment. Yet a 20-percent standard by 2020 is reasonable, achievable, and will provide for the important capital investment, market security, and environmental benefits for which we should be aiming. We have an obligation to act now to take the actions needed to secure clean, domestically produced, reliable sources of energy. We must not lag behind the weak standards or no standards at all. I urge my colleagues to vote for me in favor of this amendment. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me share my long-term interest in this matter. I came into the Congress in 1975. In that year, this Nation was in terrible shape. The oil from the Mideast had been interdicted. We had long lines of cars, and everybody was in dire straits. A number of us at that time formed a coalition to do something about energy. The reason I bring it up is that much of what we are talking about today is much of what was proposed. First, Norm Mineta, then in the House with John Blanchard of Michigan and me, introduced the wind energy bill. It passed. We drew lots as to how it would be named. It turned out to be Blanchard's bill. That was a major move forward in wind energy. Photovoltaics was another great interest of mine. I have a fond memory of the coalition we put together at that time. We had over 80 members of the energy coalition, the solar coalition as it was called. So I went on to the House floor to offer an amendment. The amendment would have taken a large step forward in solar energy. The chairman of the subcommittee came to me and said: Son, you do not offer amendments to appropriations bills unless you check with me first. He said: Come in and I will see if I can get you a couple of million dollars for this project. I said: I am sorry, but I cannot do that. He said: Why can't you? I said: Because I have 80 cosponsors. He said: You have 80 cosponsors? Yes. Well, I guess we are going to have to battle it out. And we did. It passed, although they cut part of it off for other solar energy. So that was the beginning of the photovoltaics industry in the United States. It was a proud moment, and it was a fun one to look back upon, especially as to the shock on the chairman's face when I told him how many cosponsors we had. At that time also, we went on to form the Alliance to Save Energy, which included myself, and at that time it was Jeff Bingaman and the Senator from Illinois who were with us on that issue, and that has proved to be a very interesting and excellent benefit to our energy situation. Chuck Percy was the Senator's name. I commend Jeff Bingaman, who is in the Chamber with me, for his work over those years. Together we are still working as hard as we can to do what we can about the energy situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the outstanding public service contributions of Windham County Sheriff William Graham, who retired on Friday, February 1, 2002. For 33 years, Graham, who is now 70 years old, has run his department efficiently and with fiscal accountability to the taxpayers. Since the attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon last September, many Americans have realized how important honest and hard- working law enforcement personnel are to our Nation and our communities. People from around the U.S. watched the police forces in New York and Virginia exhibit an integrity that all Americans appreciated. But I suspect that for the Vermonters of Windham County, in southern Vermont, they have always known this lesson: a trustworthy and reliable police department is indispensable to a community's health. In 1969, William began his work as sheriff in a department in which he was the only full-time employee. Since then, the department has grown to 20 full-time and an equal number of part-time employees. In Vermont, sheriffs' departments are responsible for transporting prisoners to and from criminal courts and with the paperwork from civil cases. But it hasn't been the duties that have given this sheriff's department distinction. Instead, Sheriff Graham's lengthy time in office has given his constituents the reliable and competent public service they deserve. Even before being selected sheriff, William worked as a state police trooper and a parole officer. All-in-all, his work in law enforcement has spanned 48 years. I wish Sheriff Graham all the success in his retirement that he enjoyed during his long career. And especially so during hunting season.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senator Graham, Senator Crapo, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire in introducing the Water Investment Act of 2002. This legislation seeks to provide additional resources to States, Tribes, and localities to meet water infrastructure needs. Simultaneously, it seeks to move the state of the art in water program management forward by increasing the flexibility offered to States in administering their water programs, ensuring that ``next generation'' of water quality issues receive the appropriate focus, and institutionalizing financial management capacity into our Nation's water systems. Mr. President, this legislation is critical to our Nation's future. We tend to take clean water in our faucets and well-functioning, hidden sewage treatment systems for granted in this country. However, without vigilance, these luxuries can quickly disappear. The Water Investment Act of 2002 will help our communities be vigilant. This legislation authorizes funding of over $20 billion over 5 years nationwide for clean water and $15 billion over 5 years nationwide for safe drinking water projects. There is significant new flexibility attached to these funds. Many of the provisions already authorized in the Safe Drinking Water Act which allow an extension of loan terms and more favorable loan terms (including principal forgiveness) for disadvantaged communities. In States such as my home State of Vermont, these types of provisions are critical as small communities struggle to meet water quality needs. Recognizing the needs of larger communities with diverse income groups within their borders, this bill includes a new opportunity for States to provide more favorable loan terms to communities that may not be disadvantaged as a whole, but may have pockets of disadvantaged individuals as long as the community can demonstrate that the financial benefit they received will be directed through the rate structure toward disadvantaged individuals (based on income) in their service area. The bill makes the authority to transfer funds between the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act State revolving funds permanent. There is financial accountability built into the Water Investment Act of 2002. We have included provisions for both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act that are designed to help water utilities better manage their capital investments using asset management plans, rate structures that account for capital replacement costs, and other financial management techniques. We encourage utilities to seek innovative solutions by asking them to review options for consolidation, public-private partnerships, and low-impact technologies before proceeding with a project. Whenever one mentions ``consolidation'', concerns are often raised about inadvertently providing incentives for excessive or uncontrolled growth. This legislation recognizes that concern and includes a provision that specifically requires States to ensure that water projects are coordinated with local land use plans, regional transportation improvement and long-range transportation plans, and state, regional and municipal watershed plans. As a package, this legislation will help ensure that utilities seek the most efficient organizational structure to meet their water quality needs. I am also very pleased that the bill includes provisions ensuring that ``next generation'' of water quality issues receives the appropriate focus. As I worked on this legislation, I became aware that there are opportunities to use low-impact technologies to solve water quality issues that may or may not be considered by states and localities as they seek to solve water quality issues. In response, our bill includes several incentives for use of non-structural technologies. We specifically state in the statute that these approaches are eligible to receive funding under the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund and require that recipients of funds consider the use of low-impact technologies. In addition, we authorize a demonstration program at $20 million per year over 5 years to promote innovations in technology and alternative approaches to water quality management and water supply. This program requires that a portion of the projects use low-impact development technologies. The use of nontraditional technologies is the focus in the Water Investment Act to ensure that nonpoint source pollution receives appropriate emphasis under the Clean Water Act. The modifications this bill makes to the priority listing requirements in the Clean Water Act ensure that nonpoint source projects will be a part of the equation when funding decisions are made at the State level. The bill also addresses eligibility issues. It clarifies that planning, design, and associated preconstruction costs are eligible for funds under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Funds as stand-alone items. This ensures that small communities who may not have the resources available to get a project ready to go on their own can receive assistance. Small communities will also benefit from a provision in the bill that allows privately-owned wastewater facilities to access the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund Already permitted under the Safe Drinking Water Act, this will allow small, privately-owned wastewater systems such as those located in trailer parks, to obtain much-needed financial assistance. To ensure that both public and private small systems can actually develop the projects to solve problems, our legislation provides three main types of technical assistance for small communities. It authorizes $7 million per year over 5 years for technical assistance to small systems serving less than 3300 people located in a rural area. It reauthorizes the Small Public Water Systems Technology Assistance Centers for an additional $5 million per year over 5 years. Finally, it reauthorizes the Environmental Finance Centers for $1.5 million per year over 5 years. We have heard from many organizations that public participation in the execution of the state revolving loan funds needs to be increased. I hope that every individual interested in how water quality projects are selected and prioritized in their States takes full advantage of existing opportunties for public participation. Our legislation takes action to ensure that there is ample opportunity for public comment when developing project priority lists and intended use plans. There are a multitude of additional provisions in this legislation that I will leave to my colleagues to discuss. I want to thank Senator Graham for his leadership on this legislation and Senators Crapo and Smith for their dedication to introducing a bi-partisan package today and their willingness to find a compromise when we needed one. Water infrastructure is a major priority for the Environment and Public Works Committee during this Congress. We plan to begin an aggressive schedule to move this legislation through the Senate on February 26 with our first committee hearing, followed by our second hearing on February 28 and a markup in early March. I recognize that this issue is of great importance to every Senator, and I look forward to working with each of you to pass this important legislation that is so important to our Nation's water quality and drinking water safety.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senator Graham, Senator Crapo, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire in introducing the Water Investment Act of 2002. This legislation seeks to provide additional resources to States, Tribes, and localities to meet water infrastructure needs. Simultaneously, it seeks to move the state of the art in water program management forward by increasing the flexibility offered to States in administering their water programs, ensuring that ``next generation'' of water quality issues receive the appropriate focus, and institutionalizing financial management capacity into our Nation's water systems. Mr. President, this legislation is critical to our Nation's future. We tend to take clean water in our faucets and well-functioning, hidden sewage treatment systems for granted in this country. However, without vigilance, these luxuries can quickly disappear. The Water Investment Act of 2002 will help our communities be vigilant. This legislation authorizes funding of over $20 billion over 5 years nationwide for clean water and $15 billion over 5 years nationwide for safe drinking water projects. There is significant new flexibility attached to these funds. Many of the provisions already authorized in the Safe Drinking Water Act which allow an extension of loan terms and more favorable loan terms (including principal forgiveness) for disadvantaged communities. In States such as my home State of Vermont, these types of provisions are critical as small communities struggle to meet water quality needs. Recognizing the needs of larger communities with diverse income groups within their borders, this bill includes a new opportunity for States to provide more favorable loan terms to communities that may not be disadvantaged as a whole, but may have pockets of disadvantaged individuals as long as the community can demonstrate that the financial benefit they received will be directed through the rate structure toward disadvantaged individuals (based on income) in their service area. The bill makes the authority to transfer funds between the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act State revolving funds permanent. There is financial accountability built into the Water Investment Act of 2002. We have included provisions for both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act that are designed to help water utilities better manage their capital investments using asset management plans, rate structures that account for capital replacement costs, and other financial management techniques. We encourage utilities to seek innovative solutions by asking them to review options for consolidation, public-private partnerships, and low-impact technologies before proceeding with a project. Whenever one mentions ``consolidation'', concerns are often raised about inadvertently providing incentives for excessive or uncontrolled growth. This legislation recognizes that concern and includes a provision that specifically requires States to ensure that water projects are coordinated with local land use plans, regional transportation improvement and long-range transportation plans, and state, regional and municipal watershed plans. As a package, this legislation will help ensure that utilities seek the most efficient organizational structure to meet their water quality needs. I am also very pleased that the bill includes provisions ensuring that ``next generation'' of water quality issues receives the appropriate focus. As I worked on this legislation, I became aware that there are opportunities to use low-impact technologies to solve water quality issues that may or may not be considered by states and localities as they seek to solve water quality issues. In response, our bill includes several incentives for use of non-structural technologies. We specifically state in the statute that these approaches are eligible to receive funding under the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund and require that recipients of funds consider the use of low-impact technologies. In addition, we authorize a demonstration program at $20 million per year over 5 years to promote innovations in technology and alternative approaches to water quality management and water supply. This program requires that a portion of the projects use low-impact development technologies. The use of nontraditional technologies is the focus in the Water Investment Act to ensure that nonpoint source pollution receives appropriate emphasis under the Clean Water Act. The modifications this bill makes to the priority listing requirements in the Clean Water Act ensure that nonpoint source projects will be a part of the equation when funding decisions are made at the State level. The bill also addresses eligibility issues. It clarifies that planning, design, and associated preconstruction costs are eligible for funds under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Funds as stand-alone items. This ensures that small communities who may not have the resources available to get a project ready to go on their own can receive assistance. Small communities will also benefit from a provision in the bill that allows privately-owned wastewater facilities to access the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund Already permitted under the Safe Drinking Water Act, this will allow small, privately-owned wastewater systems such as those located in trailer parks, to obtain much-needed financial assistance. To ensure that both public and private small systems can actually develop the projects to solve problems, our legislation provides three main types of technical assistance for small communities. It authorizes $7 million per year over 5 years for technical assistance to small systems serving less than 3300 people located in a rural area. It reauthorizes the Small Public Water Systems Technology Assistance Centers for an additional $5 million per year over 5 years. Finally, it reauthorizes the Environmental Finance Centers for $1.5 million per year over 5 years. We have heard from many organizations that public participation in the execution of the state revolving loan funds needs to be increased. I hope that every individual interested in how water quality projects are selected and prioritized in their States takes full advantage of existing opportunties for public participation. Our legislation takes action to ensure that there is ample opportunity for public comment when developing project priority lists and intended use plans. There are a multitude of additional provisions in this legislation that I will leave to my colleagues to discuss. I want to thank Senator Graham for his leadership on this legislation and Senators Crapo and Smith for their dedication to introducing a bi-partisan package today and their willingness to find a compromise when we needed one. Water infrastructure is a major priority for the Environment and Public Works Committee during this Congress. We plan to begin an aggressive schedule to move this legislation through the Senate on February 26 with our first committee hearing, followed by our second hearing on February 28 and a markup in early March. I recognize that this issue is of great importance to every Senator, and I look forward to working with each of you to pass this important legislation that is so important to our Nation's water quality and drinking water safety.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, Valentine's Day, provides a wonderful opportunity for me to offer my support for the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act. I commend my colleagues, Senator Frist of Tennessee and Senator Dodd of Connecticut, for their leadership and commitment to this important issue. Organ transplantation provides perhaps the clearest example where scientific research has been translated and applied to modern medicine. Not too many years ago organ transplantation was associated with inconsistent success and numerous complications. Today these procedures have advanced to the point where success is commonplace. Not only the duration of life, but the quality of life, is improved. I have carried an organ donor card in my wallet for more than twenty- five years, and I am a long-time organ donation supporter. In my home State of Vermont, Representative Johannah Donovan has introduced a bill to allow for the creation of a donor registry through the Department of Motor Vehicles. It is an excellent example of trying to make the organ donor process easier and more efficient. So, I am proud to join my colleagues as an original sponsor in this effort to increase organ donation at the national level. Even though great strides have been made in organ procurement and distribution, problems remain, and those issues are addressed by this legislation. This proposal would establish a federal inter-agency task force to coordinate organ donation efforts and transplant research; expand the Federal organ-donation grant authority and provide funds to educate lay professionals in issues surrounding organ donation; expand the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality authority to review and improve organ recovery, preservation, and transplantation; provide for two important Institute of Medicine studies to review and document issues associated with live organ donation; and establish an advisory committee to make recommendations regarding costs, benefits, expansion, availability, and other issues involving transplantation. In Vermont, we are fortunate to have Fletcher Allen Medical Center. This state-of-the-art institution provides quality transplantation services to the residents of my state and surrounding areas. However, despite a wonderful facility and a well-trained and experienced staff of health professionals, Fletcher Allen is limited, like all similar institutions, by the high demand for donor organs and the limited supply. This legislation will move us closer to the day when all individuals who would benefit from transplantation are able to receive appropriate care in a timely manner. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in the last few days, I have spoken in honor of two prominent Winter Olympians from Vermont, Kelly Clark and Ross Powers. They are extraordinary snowboarders and athletes. They have performed miracles in the air and snow in Salt Lake City. I want Vermonters and all Americans to enjoy the Winter Olympics here and elsewhere for the foreseeable future. They bring out the best and noblest elements in human nature. Today, the President is announcing his administration's policy to deal with the global warming that threatens the reliability of winter and therefore the enjoyment of winter sports. Unfortunately, from what I understand, this policy will do nothing to significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming. Obviously, this is a very serious matter to Vermonters who love to snowboard, ski and skate, and depend on predictable winters and snow. It is also a serious matter to the mayor of Salt Lake City, whose city is taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. Further, I would note that the mayor and the city of Burlington, like other progressive State and local leaders and communities across the Nation, are taking similar actions to fill the void of Federal leadership on this important issue. I don't mean to be selfish, but I would like to be certain that Vermonters can continue to win Gold Medals in the Winter Olympics for generations to come. That means taking credible action on global warming now so winter is around long enough every year for training, competing, and busting huge air, as the snowboarders say at Suicide Six Ski Area in Woodstock, VT. Clean air is a major issue in Vermont. We want to stop acid rain, and other public health and environmental damage. So, I am glad that the President has finally put forward his multi-pollutant proposal. We have been waiting for it since he took carbon dioxide off the table about a year ago. Perhaps the administration will actually work with Congress on this issue constructively. I hope the administration sends the proposal up the Hill right away in legislative form as was promised. That will speed our committee's deliberations and Senate passage. The details are not clear yet, but I hope that it will not entertain reducing any existing Clean Air Act protections. That is a crucial question that Vermonters will ask, from the skiers and snowboarders to the hikers. Unfortunately, real carbon reductions appear to have completely fallen off the table in this climate policy. In fact, all we are getting are some crumbs. Some of them even appear to be recycled crumbs that Congress never passed and probably wouldn't have worked anyway. A year ago, the President sent several Senators a unilateral ``Dear John'' letter rejecting carbon dioxide reductions at power plants and formally rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Today's new climate policy is like delivering the final divorce papers to the public and the world. And it is divorced from the reality of global warming. Maybe you could call it a love letter to the status quo and the polluting past. The Framework Convention, or the Rio Agreement, that the U.S. Senate ratified under former President Bush commits us to adopting policies that will achieve 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions. That is our commitment to the world. This policy breaks that commitment. And it fails to acknowledge that we are responsible for emitting 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. Under this policy our share would continue to grow. There would be no real reduction in our total emissions. I have faith that American ingenuity can develop cleaner, greener and more efficient technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, without a hard target to aim at, the arrow of progress is severely blunted. Our technology edge, instead of our exports, will pass to Europe, China, and other countries. Finally, as I told Governor Whitman yesterday, the administration's multi-pollutant bill has to improve air quality faster and better than business as usual to be really credible. We will be asking for that kind of proof in the coming days. We will need details on how fast their bill reduces acid rain impacts in the Northeast and how quickly it saves lives being lost or damaged from particulate pollution. Every day of delay hurts the environment and public health. I hope their numbers can help move us forward and don't drag us backward. But, I must say, without real carbon dioxide reductions, this proposal comes up short. You don't win a race with a three-legged horse, you don't drive a car with three wheels and you don't get lucky off a three-leaf clover. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a Washington Post editorial by Mayor Anderson from February 8, 2002.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, Valentine's Day, provides a wonderful opportunity for me to offer my support for the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act. I commend my colleagues, Senator Frist of Tennessee and Senator Dodd of Connecticut, for their leadership and commitment to this important issue. Organ transplantation provides perhaps the clearest example where scientific research has been translated and applied to modern medicine. Not too many years ago organ transplantation was associated with inconsistent success and numerous complications. Today these procedures have advanced to the point where success is commonplace. Not only the duration of life, but the quality of life, is improved. I have carried an organ donor card in my wallet for more than twenty- five years, and I am a long-time organ donation supporter. In my home State of Vermont, Representative Johannah Donovan has introduced a bill to allow for the creation of a donor registry through the Department of Motor Vehicles. It is an excellent example of trying to make the organ donor process easier and more efficient. So, I am proud to join my colleagues as an original sponsor in this effort to increase organ donation at the national level. Even though great strides have been made in organ procurement and distribution, problems remain, and those issues are addressed by this legislation. This proposal would establish a federal inter-agency task force to coordinate organ donation efforts and transplant research; expand the Federal organ-donation grant authority and provide funds to educate lay professionals in issues surrounding organ donation; expand the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality authority to review and improve organ recovery, preservation, and transplantation; provide for two important Institute of Medicine studies to review and document issues associated with live organ donation; and establish an advisory committee to make recommendations regarding costs, benefits, expansion, availability, and other issues involving transplantation. In Vermont, we are fortunate to have Fletcher Allen Medical Center. This state-of-the-art institution provides quality transplantation services to the residents of my state and surrounding areas. However, despite a wonderful facility and a well-trained and experienced staff of health professionals, Fletcher Allen is limited, like all similar institutions, by the high demand for donor organs and the limited supply. This legislation will move us closer to the day when all individuals who would benefit from transplantation are able to receive appropriate care in a timely manner. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it came to me as no surprise that again today I have the pleasure to rise and recognize the gold medal effort of a Vermonter on the halfpipe yesterday in Park City, UT at the 2002 Winter Olympics. Ross Powers, who hails from South Londonderry, VT, won the men's snowboarding halfpipe event, a sport that traces its roots back to Vermont, riding a Burton snowboard, which was built in Vermont. Ross, who led the American sweep of a Winter Olympic event in 46 years, turned 23 on Sunday but is no novice at high competition. In Nagano, Japan 4 years ago, Ross brought home a bronze medal for his country. But his performance yesterday was truly special: it earned him a first-place finish and led the way for Danny Kass and J.J. Thomas to win the sliver and bronze medals, respectively. Three Americans stood atop the podium, and Americans watching everywhere cheered them on. On behalf of all Vermonters, and all Americans, Ross, congratulations, good luck, and thank you for giving your best yesterday in Utah.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for a period of time not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Kelly Clark, the snowboarder from West Dover, VT, who on Sunday earned, for the United States, the first gold medal of the 2002 Winter Olympics in the women's halfpipe event. That is not ``half pint.'' That is ``halfpipe.'' One has to know the skiing history to understand what a halfpipe is. Kelly's enthusiasm and tremendous skill and ambitious drive are equaled only by her beaming smile. Kelly's achievement on Sunday was more than athletic ability. It means more than pride to her fellow Vermonters. A gold medal in an Olympic event brings people together, especially when they need it most. When have Americans needed someone to root for more than we do right now? I am especially pleased, of course, that the focus of our attention and congratulations is an 18-year-old from southern Vermont. Thank you, Kelly, for giving your best, for making us proud, and for winning the gold. I do not know how many have watched these events, but snowboarding is something which really started pretty much in Vermont. It has been perfected there, and now it is all over the world. Today is Kelly Clark's day. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that documentation important for the legislative history of S. 950, the Federal Reformulated Fuels Act, be printed in the Record. The first is a supply impact analysis of that legislation. The analysis concludes there is a significant probability that total gasoline production capacity would increase under the provisions of S. 950. The second is an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office of the effects of any private-sector mandates included within that bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Highway Funding Restoration Act as cosponsored by Senators Smith of New Hampshire, Reid, Inhofe, Baucus, Warner, Boxer, Campbell, Carper, Crapo, Clinton, Specter, Lieberman, Voinovich, Graham of Florida, Wyden, Corzine, Bond, and Chafee, be printed in the Record. The bill provides for highway infrastructure investment at the guaranteed funding level contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Highway Funding Restoration Act as cosponsored by Senators Smith of New Hampshire, Reid, Inhofe, Baucus, Warner, Boxer, Campbell, Carper, Crapo, Clinton, Specter, Lieberman, Voinovich, Graham of Florida, Wyden, Corzine, Bond, and Chafee, be printed in the Record. The bill provides for highway infrastructure investment at the guaranteed funding level contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, today I rise to recognize and honor the life of Thomas Stephen Cook of West Enosburg, VT, who died Wednesday, November 21, after a 4-year fight with leukemia. Thomas, who was only 12, inspired those who witnessed his strength and courage as he battled against his sickness. I have known Thomas since his birth, and as his cousin, I can honestly say he was one of the most extraordinary young people I've had the pleasure to meet. In April, as the 2001 Children's Miracle Network Champion from Vermont, Thomas visited my Washington office. He was on his way to meet President Bush, before heading to Walt Disney World to participate in the national Children's Miracle Network telethon. When you met Thomas, you could see that, even though he was young, he had been through a lot. More than that, Thomas was tough. Only his positive and optimistic attitude towards life was greater than his determination to fight his disease. Thomas took his responsibilities with the Children's Miracle Network very seriously. He was also a fan of University of Vermont basketball. For four seasons, Thomas served the Catamounts as the ball boy for the men's basketball team. A column from the Burlington Free Press by Patrick Garrity about Thomas' role and influence on the team says: Thomas Cook would have been pleased with the effort. He would have loved T.J. Sorrentine's slashing drives. He would have loved Grant Anderson's blue-collar play underneath. He would have loved David Hehn's baseline-to- baseline energy and Trevor Gaines' work on the offensive boards. Thomas wasn't at Patrick Gymnasium to see the University of Vermont men's basketball team's near-upset of Cleveland State on Saturday. He lost a long fight with leukemia last week. He died at age 12. His customary position for Catamounts home games was down the team's bench near the baseline, where he served the past four seasons as a ball boy. As he battled his disease and endured the cruel roller coaster of hope and despair the disease became, Thomas fought alongside the Cats, too. He came to the sidelines four years ago soon after UVM coach Tom Brennan learned of the little boy from Enosburg Falls who had been diagnosed with a disease that kills 22,000 Americans each year. What began with a hospital visit from then-freshman guard Tony Orciari blossomed into a brotherhood between the two that seeped into the hearts of every player on the team. ``He was a lot stronger than all of us,'' said senior captain Corry McLaughlin. ``Our lives are cake compared to what his was. To see him battling every day, to come out here and be with us, let alone to make it through every day, he was just a really strong kid. ``From his attitude, you would have never known he was sick. He was happy every day, jovial and upbeat.'' Here's hoping the next one goes in. For Thomas. Thomas will be fondly remembered by everyone who was fortunate to have known him.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for more than twenty-eight years it has been my pleasure to know and work with Victor Swenson in many efforts to promote the humanities at the State and national levels. On February 1, 2002, Victor retired as the Executive Director of the Vermont Council on the Humanities, a leadership role he has effectively filled since the Council's inception in 1974. Today, I rise to express my gratitude for his dedication and service to all Vermonters. Every State has a humanities council, but few are as innovative, creative, and self-sufficient as the Vermont council on the Humanities. Early on, under Victor's stewardship, the Vermont Council determined that the first step in broadening Vermonters' participation in humanities programming was ensuring that all Vermonters were able to read. This undertaking, creating a state in which every individual reads, participates in public affairs, and continues to learn throughout life, involves an enormous commitment. It is a self-imposed and ambitious challenge that the Council has taken on completely. The Council has distinguished itself as a national leader in promoting reading. Victor's work with the Council has been so successful and has enjoyed such a long tenure that it would be impossible to discuss one without a complete mention of the other. Throughout this long association, Victor has held an unfading belief that the humanities can and must be used to improve life in meaningful ways. Victor believes rightly that all Vermonters benefit from any investment in the humanities, and the Council has been his vehicle for advancement. In January 1974, Victor set up office in Hyde Park, VT, with a budget of $140,000. His first two grants were to the Crossroads Humanities Council in Rutland, VT, and to the Vermont Historical Society. As with those first two grants, the Council has used its position to challenge the people of Vermont to enrich their lives locally through the humanities. The Council has worked for the preservation of historic papers and documents, the creation of reading programs, initiatives to improve teachers' abilities in teaching the humanities and many, many other meaningful projects. The importance of Victor's influence in Vermont for more than a quarter of a century cannot be overemphasized. I congratulate Victor on his retirement and I sincerely wish him the best of luck in whatever he may do next.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I honor Mr. Robert K. Krick on his recent retirement from the National Park Service and for his distinguished career as a Civil War historian and preservationist. Mr. Krick joined the National Park Service in 1966, working both at Fort McHenry National Monument and Fort Necessity National Battlefield. In 1972, he became the Chief Historian at Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park. It is a position he held for twenty-nine years until his retirement last month. During his tenure at Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park--an area which comprises four battlefields--the total amount of park acreage grew from under 3000 to over 8000 today. Nearly half of all the historians at Civil War battlefield parks learned their trade under Bob Krick. His contributions to the preservation of historic land are numerous. Bob's tireless efforts to expand and improve the National Park Service will continue to be appreciated by the millions of individuals who visit these historic areas each year. Although preservation of Civil War battlefields was a large part of Bob's career, he found the time to become a distinguished author and scholar. He has written 12 books, including ``Stonewall Jackson at Cedar Mountain,'' and ``Conquering the Valley: Stonewall Jackson at Cross Keys and Port Republic, as well as countless articles and book reviews. His works will undoubtedly influence future generations. More than a decade ago I began touring various battlefields with Bob and several other Civil War historians. We relived Jackson's battles of the 1862 campaign and retraced the Union campaign of 1864. With Bob by my side, I was able to visualize the 1862 battles and could feel Jackson's presence. I came away from the trip with the strong feeling that it was my responsibility as a U.S. Senator to help preserve this part of our national heritage. Since that time I have been dedicated to preserving our Nation's most cherished and sacred lands. As a first step, I introduced legislation that directed the Park Service to undertake a study of Civil War sites. Congress responded by passing legislation, in 1991, that created a national Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. Composed of distinguished historians, supported by a staff of National Park Service experts, the commission for two years studied the remaining Civil War Battlefields. The 1993 report presented a plan of action for protecting what remained of the Civil War Battlefields. Since 1993, I have helped to secure $19 million in Federal funds to preserve these priceless links to America's past. Although much work has been done in the last decade to preserve battlefields, there is a lot to do as our nation's history is still being demolished and bulldozed at an alarming pace. Bob will continue to be a preservation leader as a Board member of the Richmond Battlefields Association. I look forward to working with and calling upon Bob for advice in the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Finally, I want to commend Senators Kennedy, Frist, and Gregg and say that I am looking forward to working with them during the conference on these measures.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Finally, I want to commend Senators Kennedy, Frist, and Gregg and say that I am looking forward to working with them during the conference on these measures. Amendment No. 2692

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, and my distinguished colleagues, I am pleased that we are moving so quickly on legislation to combat bioterrorism--this is certainly a timely issue. I would like to engage my colleagues in a colloquy to clarify our commitment to another important issue--the security of our Nation's water supply. At the end of October of this year, I was joined by the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee in introducing S. 1593 and S. 1608. S. 1593 authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a grant program to support research projects on critical infrastructure protection for water supply systems. S. 1608 establishes a program to provide grants to drinking water and wastewater facilities to meet immediate security needs. I understand that the gentleman from Tennessee, the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from New Hampshire support the modified provisions of these bills. Is that correct?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, we take a historic step toward bolstering economic development. The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, H.R. 2869, will protect our small businesses. This bill will revitalize once abandoned factory sites. This bill will give new life to our aging industrial sites. This bill will provide hope and prosperity to locations long ago forgotten. Earlier this year, the U.S. Senate declared a mandate in the form of a 99-0 vote endorsing the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, S. 350. Unanimously, the Senate pledged its commitment to the redevelopment of potentially contaminated industrial sites. As Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have taken that mandate seriously. I am pleased that, today, the House followed suit. The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act authorizes $250 million a year over the next five years for assessment and cleanup grants, including petroleum sites, and State program enhancement. The bill would provide liability relief for three groups: contiguous property owners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners. Lastly, the bill outlines the parameters by which EPA may re-enter a site to protect human health and the environment. We also have fulfilled another mandate today. Earlier this year, the Small Business Liability Protection Act passed the House of Representatives 419-0; today, the Senate followed suit. This legislation is a victory for small businesses, on which the foundation of our nation's economy stands. The Small Business Liability Protection Act provides Superfund liability relief for small businesses and others who disposed of, or arranged disposal of, small amounts of hazardous waste. The legislation also allows expedited settlements for a lesser amount if a business can show financial hardship. There are many who share in this victory. It was truly a bipartisan and bicameral effort. In particular, I would like to recognize the efforts of Senators Smith, Chafee, Baucus and Boxer. I also thank all the Leadership offices, on both sides and in both Chambers, for their dedication to the passage of H.R. 2869. I am very proud of this legislation. I am pleased to have played an integral role in these efforts to encourage development of our urban cores, reduce development demands in greenfields, and promote our economic base by supporting our small businesses. This new year's resolution has been many years in the making. I am gratified that our communities will reap the rewards of further tools to redevelop brownfields and sustain small businesses in 2002 and beyond.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am especially pleased that the Senate is scheduled to consider and vote on the Nurse Reinvestment Act. When we pass this measure, it will represent a good day for the future of nursing in America and a good day for the future for patient-care. I want to take this opportunity to tell our colleagues a little about this legislation and to congratulate and complement my fellow Senators who worked so hard to see this effort through. My good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, was the original sponsor of the Nurse Reinvestment Act and with me crafted an innovative set of solutions to the nursing shortage problem. Since then, this bill has been strengthened significantly by the inclusion of a complimentary measure authored by my colleagues on the HELP Committee, Senator Hutchinson and Senator Mikulski. The measure we are considering today has been benefited by this collaboration. As I have stated before, we are facing a looming crisis in this country. The size of our nursing workforce remains stagnant, while the average age of the American nurse is on the rise. Over the past five years, enrollment in entry-level nursing programs has declined by 20 percent. Nurses under the age of 30 represent only 10 percent of the current workforce. By 2010, 40 percent of the nursing workforce will be over the age of 50, and nearing retirement. In Vermont we are facing an even greater crisis because these numbers are worse. Only 28 percent of nurses are under the age of 40 and Vermont schools and colleges are producing 31 percent fewer nurses today than they did just five years ago. We have a compelling need to encourage more Americans to enter the nursing profession and to strengthen it so that more nurses choose to stay in the profession. All facets of the health care system will have a role to play in ensuring a strong nursing workforce. Nurses, physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, academia, community organizations and state and federal governments all must accept responsibility and work towards a solution. Part of the responsibility to launch that effort begins with us today as we make a decision on the vote for the Nurse Reinvestment Act. The Nurse Reinvestment Act expands and improves the federal government's support of ``pipeline'' programs, which will maintain a strong talent pool and develop a nursing workforce that can address the increasingly diverse needs of America's population. The Nurse Reinvestment Act provides for a comprehensive public awareness and education campaign on a national, state and local level that will bolster the image of the profession, encourage diversity, attract more nurses to the workforce, and lead current nurses to take advantage of career development opportunities. The legislation creates a National Nursing Service Corps Scholarship Program authorized at $40 million that will provide scholarships to individuals to attend nursing schools in exchange for a commitment to serve two years in a health facility determined to have a critical shortage of nurses. This scholarship program is designed to greatly help the recruitment of nursing students by providing them tuition, other reasonable and necessary educational fees and a monthly stipend paid to the student. The Act also authorizes the ``Nurse Recruitment Grant Program'' to support outreach efforts by nursing schools and other eligible healthcare facilities to inform students in primary, junior and secondary schools of nursing educational opportunities and to attract them to the nursing profession. The grant program provides appropriate student support services to individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds and creates community-based partnerships to recruit nurses in medically underserved rural and urban areas. Further, the ``Area Health Education Centers Program'' will award grants to nursing schools that work in partnership in the community to develop models of excellence. The ``Career Ladder Programs'' will assist schools of nursing, health care facilities or partnerships of the two to develop programs that will encourage current nursing students in active nurses alike, to pursue further education and training. This will be achieved through scholarships, stipends, career counseling, direct training and distance learning programs. And, in light of our aging baby-boomer generation, specific grants are offered to schools and health care facilities so that they might place a further emphasis upon encouraging students to study long-term care for the elderly. In addition to the provisions that were included in the original bill I co-sponsored with my colleague Senator Kerry, there are provisions added by our colleagues which, I am happy to have included in this final piece of legislation. Those provisions will provide for the development of internship and residency programs to encourage the development of specialties and student, loan, stipend and scholarship programs for those who would like to seek a masters or doctorate degree at a school of nursing. The final bill was also strengthened by provisions added through the efforts of Senator Lieberman and Senator Clinton. Once again, I want to applaud my colleagues Senator Kerry, Senator Mikulski and Senator Hutchinson for their tireless work on the Nurse Reinvestment Act and for the work of their staffs. In particular, I want to recognize the efforts of Kelly Bovio in Senator Kerry,'s office, Kate Hull in Senator Hutchinson's office and Rhonda Richards with Senator Mikulski. This effort was also advanced with the help of Sarah Bianchi and Jackie Gran who are members of Senator Kennedy's staff, Steve Irizarry with Senator Gregg and Shana Christrup with Senator Frist. Finally, in my own office, I want to note the efforts of Philo Hall, Angela Mattie, Eric Silva and Sean Donohue. Adequate health care services cannot survive any further diminishing of the nursing workforce. All patients depend on the professional care of nurses, and we must make sure it will be there for them. I urged my colleagues to join me and the bill's cosponsors in support of this measure.