Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Our colleagues on the House side also recognized this need by including water security provisions in the bioterrorism bill, H.R. 3448, that was passed by the House on December 12. I would like my colleagues' assurance that during conference they will press for adoption of the modified versions of S. 1593 and S. 1608.

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 Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Hampshire support the modified provisions of these bills. Is that correct?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Our colleagues on the House side also recognized this need by including water security provisions in the bioterrorism bill, H.R. 3448, that was passed by the House on December 12th. I would like my colleagues' assurance that during conference they will press for adoption of the modified versions of S. 1593 and S. 1608.

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.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are now near the end of the first session of the 107th Congress. It has been an exceedingly long and difficult year. There have been many changes, surprises and tragedies. One politically significant event that particularly dismayed me was the President's modification of his campaign pledge to reduce emissions of four major pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide, emitted by power plants. In March, he wrote to several Senators telling them he would no longer support mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas. This struck me as a return to a 1950s-style energy and environmental policy. On a more optimistic role, however, that reversal and the administration's unilateral withdrawal and disengagement from the international negotiations to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol has created more interest and activity on this matter than ever on Capitol Hill and in the media. Now, many Members are asking themselves whether Congress should just proceed without the Administration. In fact, the Daschle-Bingaman energy legislation contains a significant climate change title that does just that. This subject will contain to receive a great deal of attention in the Environment and Public Works Committee and elsewhere as we try to implement through statute our existing national commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Today, I am joining with Senators Corzine and Lieberman in introducing a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to require reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from major sources and to create a voluntary registry for those sources to document their emissions reduction efforts. This new system will be maintained and operated by the Environmental Protection Agency, which has the greatest Federal agency experience and capability in monitoring enforcing and tracking air emissions. The information generated by this system will be of great assistance in developing a national trading system in carbon emission credits. The U.S. is a global leader in the creation and operation of such systems and must not lag behind doors in the international community. We have been waiting some time for the Administration to make known the results of its climate change policy review and for a constructive multi-pollutant legislative proposal. There is no question that the terrible events of September 11, have had a devastating effect on our citizenry and the government. But, we are a great nation and the Federal Government must be capable of working on a variety of domestic and international fronts, even in the face of great adversity. There are few, if any, environmental issues more compelling than global warming and its effects. As many Senators may recall, Congress and the previous Bush Administration worked together and were very productive during the Gulf War on many pieces of environmental legislation, not the least of which was the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. That was a different time, but that situation demonstrates that given the right level of attention and resources, we can accomplish a great deal working together even under stressful circumstances. The Administration's unilateral approach to this important subject is puzzling. The U.S. is responsible for approximately 25 percent of the total carbon loading to the atmosphere. This man-made pollution is leading to a warming of the entire planet through the greenhouse effect, according to the National Academy of Sciences. Surely, we should do our share to reduce these emissions to protect our environmental and economy, and our global neighbors. That is the most certain way to protect our long-term interests and reduce the impacts of proceeding with business as usual. We have asked a great deal of our friends across the globe as part of our response to terrorism, particularly of our friends in the European Union. We must not forget that they too have an agenda for the international community and that agenda includes concerted action on climate change. Ignoring that agenda for too long may create unnecessary trade and tariff barrier problems for U.S. goods and services. Already, the pending adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in European Union countries and elsewhere poses, complex accounting and trade issues for U.S. multi-nationals operating in Annex I countries. The Administration's silence on this clearly growing problem is also puzzling. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric and the World Meteorological Organization say that 2001 will be the second warmest year on record since records have been kept in the mid-1800s. Recently, the Washington Post reported on the New England Regional Assessment of the Potential Consequence of Climate Variability and Change. The Assessment, which is one of the many regional assessments being conducted pursuant to the Global Change Research Act of 1990, found that the Northeast's climate is likely to become hotter and more flood- prone. The region may see a 6-9 degrees fahrenheit overall temperature increase over the next 100 hundreds due to the global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. This would cause sugar maples to disappear from Vermont forests, threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, exacerbate existing air pollution problems and harm cold-weather- dependent industries like skiing. There are varying claims about the economic effects related to global warming and climate change. Effects that will occur beyond the normal economic forecasting period are difficult to determine. But, some studies have suggested that when a doubling of atmospheric CO2 occurs, sometime in the next 50-70 years according to most models, the cost to the U.S. economy could be between 0.3 percent- 6 percent of GDP in 2000 dollars. While the nature of the exact impacts of climate change on forestry, construction, hydropower, and agriculture are disputed, most sectors will see losses, according to studies for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and the Institute for International Economics. These effects can be lessened by purposeful and strong leadership in the Congress and the White House. We have the technological ability to revolutionize our use of fossil fuels through efficiency and process changes, and to radically increase our production of renewable energy in all forms. These steps can dramatically and cost-effectively reduce carbon emissions in the near term, according to studies done by the Department of Energy and various think-tanks. However, we must do something soon to stimulate that revolution. Providing information on waste generation and release into the environment has been a great success of the Toxic Release Inventory. Educating the public and the market about wasteful behavior has stimulated major emissions reductions. The bill we are introducing today should be similarly successful in promoting innovation and efficiency in all major carbon emitting sectors, in addition to preparing the appropriate infrastructure for a national carbon credit trading system. Early in the next session, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will mark up S. 556, the Clean Power Act, which requires reductions in greenhouse gas emission from the power generating sector. That sector's emissions have risen approximately 26 percent above 1990 levels and are expected to grow 1.8 percent annually without some Federal action. This is well beyond our international treaty commitments on a sector basis. The majority of those facilities are already required to report their carbon dioxide emissions to EPA. I am hopeful that we can proceed with a tri-partisan, consensual markup of the Clean Power Act. But, two elements may preclude our ability to achieve some agreement. First, the Administration may go forward with proposals to modify the New Source Review, NSR, program. This possibility gravely concerns me and other Members of the Committee, given the lack of transparency in the Administration's proceedings on the pending NSR enforcement actions and the ``consistency'' review by the Department of Justice. And, second, perhaps more importantly, there is a distinct lack of constructive engagement with the Committee on a multi-pollutant bill or any clear progress on an Administration proposal. Next year promises to be very busy in the energy and environmental policy arena. We cannot afford to simply recreate the debates that occurred during the Energy Policy Act of 1992. We know the world to be a much different place now and fraught with greater and more complex dangers like global warming. It would be irresponsible in the extreme for Congress or the White House to take actions that increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood of those dangers. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues on a variety of actions to make progress in adapting to the climate change we have already caused and on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent greater future damage that our great-grandchildren will have to face. I ask unanimous consent to print the article to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are now near the end of the first session of the 107th Congress. It has been an exceedingly long and difficult year. There have been many changes, surprises and tragedies. One politically significant event that particularly dismayed me was the President's modification of his campaign pledge to reduce emissions of four major pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide, emitted by power plants. In March, he wrote to several Senators telling them he would no longer support mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas. This struck me as a return to a 1950s-style energy and environmental policy. On a more optimistic role, however, that reversal and the administration's unilateral withdrawal and disengagement from the international negotiations to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol has created more interest and activity on this matter than ever on Capitol Hill and in the media. Now, many Members are asking themselves whether Congress should just proceed without the Administration. In fact, the Daschle-Bingaman energy legislation contains a significant climate change title that does just that. This subject will contain to receive a great deal of attention in the Environment and Public Works Committee and elsewhere as we try to implement through statute our existing national commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Today, I am joining with Senators Corzine and Lieberman in introducing a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to require reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from major sources and to create a voluntary registry for those sources to document their emissions reduction efforts. This new system will be maintained and operated by the Environmental Protection Agency, which has the greatest Federal agency experience and capability in monitoring enforcing and tracking air emissions. The information generated by this system will be of great assistance in developing a national trading system in carbon emission credits. The U.S. is a global leader in the creation and operation of such systems and must not lag behind doors in the international community. We have been waiting some time for the Administration to make known the results of its climate change policy review and for a constructive multi-pollutant legislative proposal. There is no question that the terrible events of September 11, have had a devastating effect on our citizenry and the government. But, we are a great nation and the Federal Government must be capable of working on a variety of domestic and international fronts, even in the face of great adversity. There are few, if any, environmental issues more compelling than global warming and its effects. As many Senators may recall, Congress and the previous Bush Administration worked together and were very productive during the Gulf War on many pieces of environmental legislation, not the least of which was the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. That was a different time, but that situation demonstrates that given the right level of attention and resources, we can accomplish a great deal working together even under stressful circumstances. The Administration's unilateral approach to this important subject is puzzling. The U.S. is responsible for approximately 25 percent of the total carbon loading to the atmosphere. This man-made pollution is leading to a warming of the entire planet through the greenhouse effect, according to the National Academy of Sciences. Surely, we should do our share to reduce these emissions to protect our environmental and economy, and our global neighbors. That is the most certain way to protect our long-term interests and reduce the impacts of proceeding with business as usual. We have asked a great deal of our friends across the globe as part of our response to terrorism, particularly of our friends in the European Union. We must not forget that they too have an agenda for the international community and that agenda includes concerted action on climate change. Ignoring that agenda for too long may create unnecessary trade and tariff barrier problems for U.S. goods and services. Already, the pending adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in European Union countries and elsewhere poses, complex accounting and trade issues for U.S. multi-nationals operating in Annex I countries. The Administration's silence on this clearly growing problem is also puzzling. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric and the World Meteorological Organization say that 2001 will be the second warmest year on record since records have been kept in the mid-1800s. Recently, the Washington Post reported on the New England Regional Assessment of the Potential Consequence of Climate Variability and Change. The Assessment, which is one of the many regional assessments being conducted pursuant to the Global Change Research Act of 1990, found that the Northeast's climate is likely to become hotter and more flood- prone. The region may see a 6-9 degrees fahrenheit overall temperature increase over the next 100 hundreds due to the global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. This would cause sugar maples to disappear from Vermont forests, threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, exacerbate existing air pollution problems and harm cold-weather- dependent industries like skiing. There are varying claims about the economic effects related to global warming and climate change. Effects that will occur beyond the normal economic forecasting period are difficult to determine. But, some studies have suggested that when a doubling of atmospheric CO2 occurs, sometime in the next 50-70 years according to most models, the cost to the U.S. economy could be between 0.3 percent- 6 percent of GDP in 2000 dollars. While the nature of the exact impacts of climate change on forestry, construction, hydropower, and agriculture are disputed, most sectors will see losses, according to studies for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and the Institute for International Economics. These effects can be lessened by purposeful and strong leadership in the Congress and the White House. We have the technological ability to revolutionize our use of fossil fuels through efficiency and process changes, and to radically increase our production of renewable energy in all forms. These steps can dramatically and cost-effectively reduce carbon emissions in the near term, according to studies done by the Department of Energy and various think-tanks. However, we must do something soon to stimulate that revolution. Providing information on waste generation and release into the environment has been a great success of the Toxic Release Inventory. Educating the public and the market about wasteful behavior has stimulated major emissions reductions. The bill we are introducing today should be similarly successful in promoting innovation and efficiency in all major carbon emitting sectors, in addition to preparing the appropriate infrastructure for a national carbon credit trading system. Early in the next session, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will mark up S. 556, the Clean Power Act, which requires reductions in greenhouse gas emission from the power generating sector. That sector's emissions have risen approximately 26 percent above 1990 levels and are expected to grow 1.8 percent annually without some Federal action. This is well beyond our international treaty commitments on a sector basis. The majority of those facilities are already required to report their carbon dioxide emissions to EPA. I am hopeful that we can proceed with a tri-partisan, consensual markup of the Clean Power Act. But, two elements may preclude our ability to achieve some agreement. First, the Administration may go forward with proposals to modify the New Source Review, NSR, program. This possibility gravely concerns me and other Members of the Committee, given the lack of transparency in the Administration's proceedings on the pending NSR enforcement actions and the ``consistency'' review by the Department of Justice. And, second, perhaps more importantly, there is a distinct lack of constructive engagement with the Committee on a multi-pollutant bill or any clear progress on an Administration proposal. Next year promises to be very busy in the energy and environmental policy arena. We cannot afford to simply recreate the debates that occurred during the Energy Policy Act of 1992. We know the world to be a much different place now and fraught with greater and more complex dangers like global warming. It would be irresponsible in the extreme for Congress or the White House to take actions that increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood of those dangers. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues on a variety of actions to make progress in adapting to the climate change we have already caused and on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent greater future damage that our great-grandchildren will have to face. I ask unanimous consent to print the article to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, a year ago this week, in Texas, I joined several colleagues as the then-chairman of the Senate Education Committee and met with President-elect Bush to discuss education reform. It is interesting to note that the meeting occurred in Texas, the home of the current President, and the home of our 36th President, Lyndon Johnson, who, in 1965, signed into law the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As we emerged from last year's Austin meeting, we made a bipartisan commitment to write and pass an education reform bill that would raise school accountability and improve student achievement. With the projection of budget surpluses for as far as the eye could see, it appeared that we would not only set in motion innovative reforms, but we would also match those reforms with new monetary investments. It has been 362 days since we left that optimistic Austin meeting, and the scenario has dramatically changed. We are not only facing a very different economic reality, but we also have an administration in place that does not support the funding needed to successfully carry out its own education reform initiative. There is no question that we need to improve our Nation's schools. Results from the recently released National Assessment of Educational Progress show that only 1 in 5--that is only 1 in 5--of this country's high school seniors are proficient in math and science, and only 2 in 5 are proficient in reading. Further, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study shows that performance in math and science by U.S. students declines relative to that of students in other nations as students move through the grades of our school system. Another startling statistic is that almost half of all adults have either dropped out of high school or have not pursued any type of post- secondary education. Last year, we had to again raise the cap on the number of H-1B visas because this Nation is lacking the skilled employees necessary to meet the workforce demands of the high-tech and health care industries. That is insulting. I commend the President and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Education Committees for creating legislation specifically mandating that States and schools must significantly improve performance. The bill before us imposes very strict mandates on our schools, requiring States to separate achievement data by race, gender, and other subgroups to better identify those students having academic difficulties. This is a very worthy goal and one which I fully support. However, I fear that this bill, without the sufficient resources, will merely highlight our shortcomings. I fear it will not provide the assistance--both financial and technical--that schools will need to meet the goal of having every student reach their full academic potential. Educational budgets throughout this Nation are facing severe cuts due, in part, to the recent economic downturn, but also due to the high costs associated with providing students with disabilities special education services. In Vermont, 92 percent of the children with disabilities, between the ages of 6 and 11, are educated in their neighborhood schools in classrooms with their nondisabled peers. Special education costs in Vermont have increased 150 percent over the past 10 years. The Federal underfunding of special education leads to State and local districts spending approximately $20 million more in Vermont from local sources than would be necessary if Federal funding were provided at the level Congress promised in the original law. In 1975, we, in the Congress, authorized the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of each State's excess cost of educating children with disabilities. It has been 26 years since we made that commitment, and we have failed to keep our promise. We are currently providing only 16 percent of the original 40 percent promised. Earlier this year, during Senate consideration of the ESEA bill, this body unanimously adopted the Harkin-Hagel amendment that required Congress to fully fund IDEA through progressive annual increases. I am extremely disappointed that the final product we are considering today does not include this critical amendment. Without the inclusion of the Harkin-Hagel amendment, and without sufficient funding for the programs outlined in the bill, I am afraid this bill may actually do more harm than good. The primary feature of H.R. 1 is adequate yearly progress. Under the revamped title I program, every student in every school must be proficient within 12 years. This sounds reasonable. However, at current funding levels, and even with over a billion-dollar increase for title I in the coming year, we will still only be funding less than half of the children who qualify under the title I program. Since title I was created in the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, neither Congress nor any administration has provided the dollars required to fund all of the students needing services. It seems to me that Congress has failed to meet its own adequate yearly progress goals for the past 36 years. I have been in Congress for more than 25 years. I have never voted against an education bill before. But to vote for this education bill as it now stands, I believe, is counterproductive, if not destructive. My instincts tell me that this bill will become law within a matter of days. Although I am voting against this bill, I will work very hard with all of my colleagues to obtain the funding that is needed so that our educational system will not only be strengthened but, as Dr. Seuss once said in one of the last books to be issued before this author's passing: ``. . . you'll be the best of the best. Wherever you go, you will top all the rest.'' We can only be the ``best of the best'' by not only adequately funding these programs but also working with parents and teachers and principals and superintendents and school personnel and school board officials and students, for they have many of the answers that will enable us and our students ``to top all of the rest.'' Today, I vote against this bill because I believe it is better to approve no bill rather than to approve a bad bill. I am sincerely hoping, for the sake of our children, that history will prove me wrong. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to address the impact of our existing energy policies on America's environment and public health. Energy touches every aspect of our lives, from the fuels that heat our homes and businesses, to the electricity that powers our lights, to the electricity that powers our lights, to the gasoline that runs our cars, airplanes and other forms of transportation. Unfortunately, our current energy use comes at a price. We are heavily dependent on oil imported from politically unstable areas of the world. Vehicle emissions are one of the major air pollutants, yet our vehicle fuel efficiency standards have been at a virtual standstill for more than a decade, and we have made very little movement toward real use of alternative, nonpetroleum fueled vehicles. Emissions from our Nation's power plants degrade air quality, pollute our water, and contribute a whopping 40 percent of our national carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of global warming. We in the Northeast live downwind from virtually the entire Nation. Pollution from many of the Nation's most industrialized regions makes its way to my State, bringing acid rain that is destroying Vermont's forests and lakes, and mercury that is contaminating our fish. Regional haze significantly reduces visibility in the Northeast, diminishing views in the Green Mountains and across our beautiful Lake Champlain, and affecting other of our most scenic natural areas. So I have a very personal interest in how energy is used and developed in this country. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I also have a very strong interest in how energy use affects our national air quality, water quality, and wildlife. I am concerned about emissions that cause global warming, and that harm our natural environment and the health of our children, our seniors and those who suffer from respiratory diseases. We must also manage to have affordable energy without having to destroy pristine natural areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Nuclear energy is also an important component of our energy mix. We must find ways to deal with the environmental and public health risks associated with production, storage and disposal of nuclear energy. We must also thoroughly and quickly address facility security, an issue of compelling concern for nuclear as well as chemical plants following the attacks of September 11. As chairman of the Senate EPW Committee, I have held numerous hearings on these issues. I have also introduced legislation that would mandate strict emissions standards and create incentives for the use of clean, alternative power. I have introduced legislation that would provide tax incentives to support alternative fuel and new technology vehicles. And I have introduced legislation to promote alternative energy sources through the use of renewable energy trading credits, through the establishment of matching funds to States to promote energy efficiency programs and through net metering which gives consumers credit for their own production of solar or wind energy. I will continue to review emissions from the electricity and transportation sectors and related air, water and human health concerns in the EPW Committee in the upcoming session. I wish to express my strong commitment to continuing to work with Senator Daschle and Senator Bingaman on legislation to advance our national energy policy in the right direction. I congratulate them on introduction of S. 1766, the Energy Policy Act of 2001. This comprehensive energy package sends a strong message about our need to achieve energy efficiency, and to diversify into clean, domestically produced renewable energy. I applaud my colleagues for stepping forward on these issues. It is imperative that we create a national energy policy that will provide adequate and affordable energy supplies, but will leave a heritage of clean air, clean water and pristine wild places, while also reducing harmful carbon emissions that destabilize our global climate. Senators Daschle and Bingaman and their staffs have put in long hours to make this a consensus bill, and I commend them for their leadership on these complex issues. Certainly there is much to support in the Daschle/Bingaman legislation. I thank them for including a modified version of S. 950, the Federal Reformulated Fuels Act, a bill that was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this year. That inclusion should help reduce MTBE contamination of water supplies and enhance fuel suppliers' flexibility in meeting market demand. That part of the bill also includes a provision to grow the renewables share of the transportation fuels market. That benefits the environment and reduces our petroleum dependency. I am glad to see provisions in the Daschle/Bingaman bill allowing those who generate wind, solar and other clean renewable energies to connect to the energy grid, and to receive credit for their renewables generation through net metering. These provisions are essential for allowing entry of renewable technologies into the market. While some issues in these provisions still need to be worked out, I strongly support addressing them in comprehensive energy legislation. I also 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 support the provisions that fund additional research and development for expanding our energy efficiency technologies, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and for promoting renewable energy. Having long been a champion of energy assistance to low-income families, I applaud the provisions which increase funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs, LIHEAP, the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Programs. Price spikes in home heating fuels hit low-income consumers the hardest. We should give strong support to these programs which help families pay their bills, and which address the underlying energy efficiency problems associated with high energy costs such as better airsealing, insulation, and furnace and cooling replacements. The Daschle/Bingaman legislation also sets us on a path to seriously address global climate change. The bill directs the development of a comprehensive energy research and development strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. it incorporates a sense-of-the-Senate resolution urging the administration to re-engage constructively on international negotiations on climate change. And, the legislation creates a mandatory greenhouse gas emission reporting and registry system. For all its good provisions, however, the bill has several serious shortcomings. These shortcomings must be addressed if we are to meet our obligation for a clean, effective and responsible energy policy. The renewable energy portfolio standard in the bill falls well below what is technologically achievable. In so doing, it fails to capitalize on the very realistic goal of significantly diversifying our energy supply with clean, domestic resources. Consistent with my longstanding interest in renewable energy, in August of this year I introduced S. 1333, which sets a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, of 20 percent by the year 2020. An RPS is a market-based mechanism that uses tradable ``renewable energy credits'' to enable utilities to gradually increase the percentage of electricity produced from renewables such as wind, biomass, geothermal and solar energy. Twelve States, including Texas, have successfully enacted RPS requirements. The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration estimates that an RPS providing 20 percent of U.S. electricity from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy by 2020 would raise consumer electricity prices by only 0.7 percent in 2010, and by 2020, total consumer electric bills would actually be declining with an RPS. Yet, the Daschle/Bingaman bill imposes a requirement of only 10 percent by 2020. I note that even this 10 percent is a vast improvement over existing proposals. The administration to date has refused to endorse any RPS, despite successful introduction of an RPS in Texas and other States. HR 4, the House-passed energy bill, contains no RPS. Instead, HR 4 directs approximately $30 billion in taxpayer subsidies to traditional oil, gas and coal production. This is both unwise and unacceptable. It is essential that this Congress reverse the trend of overreliance on fossil fuels, a trend that weakens our national security and limits economic and technological opportunities in the energy and commercial sectors. Like most of my colleagues, I too believe we must decrease our dangerous addiction to foreign oil. However, this will not be accomplished by spending billions of dollars on subsidies to promote the status quo. In a world where the U.S. is 56-percent dependent upon foreign imports, but holds only 3 percent of the oil reserves, we are foolish at best to undervalue emerging renewable technologies. I will continue to work in the upcoming session with my colleagues and the administration to raise our commitment to wind, solar and other clean and domestically produced renewable energy by enacting a strong renewable portfolio standard. I am encouraged by provisions in S. 1731, the farm bill being considered on the floor this week, that will provide mandatory spending to promote the expanded use and production of renewable energy in the agricultural sector. The bill provides grants to farmers, ranchers and small businesses to convert biomass into fuels, chemicals and other products. It also finances the purchase of renewable energy technologies such as windmill turbines. It provides specific financial aid to rural electric coops and utilities to aid in the development of renewable energy, and requires Federal agencies to purchase biobased products. These are types of creative measures needed to strengthen renewable energy in this country. Comprehensive energy legislation must also address global climate change. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for more than 85 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. While the Daschle/Bingaman bill does have many sound provisions addressing global climate change, I am deeply concerned that administration of the greenhouse gas database is not placed with the EPA. EPA is clearly the agency most qualified and appropriate to run this program. No other agency has the experience with air emissions data or the 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 1987 and other authorities. Placing this responsibility elsewhere in the Federal bureaucracy seems duplicative and illogical. The Daschle/Bingaman Energy Policy Act of 2001 also leaves out several key provisions which are essential to a balanced energy policy. These include a public benefits trust fund, tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, and updated CAFE, or corporate average fuel economy, standards. It is my understanding that it is the leader's intention to include provisions in all three areas before the bill comes to the floor. A public benefits trust fund is necessary to provide local funding for clean energy programs, and to encourage energy efficiency in the electricity system. My bill, S. 1333, would establish a State matching grant program. Eligible areas on which the States can spend the grants include energy efficient programs; investments in promising renewable energy technologies; low-income energy assistance; and universal access to the transmission grid. I urge Senate Daschle to include a similar provision in any final energy package, along with other tax incentive programs for promoting renewables and energy efficiency. As to CAFE standards, it almost goes without saying that improving the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks is of the highest priority. The National Academy of Sciences tells us what we already know, which is that improving fuel efficiency will save consumers money, cut greenhouse gas emissions and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Efficiency in both cars and trucks, and in the electricity sector, are essential to cutting emissions and addressing global warming. As chairman of the Environment Committee, the environmental and public health impacts of emissions are on the top of my list of concerns. I 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 look forward to working with Senators Daschle and Bingaman and my other colleagues to ensure strong provisions in the energy package to address these issues. I also note that S. 1766 contains provisions that would exempt hydraulic fracturing, a natural gas production technique, from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Legislation proposing this has been referred to the EPW Committee, and I intend to hold hearings on this matter at the earliest possible time in the upcoming session. Once the EPW Committee has acted on this matter, it is likely I will have amendments to propose to this provision. S. 1776 also reauthorizes the Department of Energy contractor provisions of the Price Anderson Act. The EPW Committee will be holding hearings early in the session on Price Anderson reauthorization of commercial nuclear powerplants licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as on security at nuclear powerplants. Senator Reid and I will work with the leader on appropriate language to be included in any energy package debated on the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond. This amendment gives broad authority to the Secretary of Agriculture and the President to overturn the legal responsibilities of Government agencies if they determine that an agency action might --might--have adverse economic impacts on or jeopardize the personal safety of a farmer or rancher. While I know the Senator is concerned about the economic well-being of farmers and ranchers--and we all are--this amendment would waive many of the protections that our Federal agencies are charged with providing. Under this amendment, if the Environmental Protection Agency sets a water quality standard to prevent degradation of a stream, and the Secretary and the President think meeting that standard may have an adverse economic impact on a farmer or a rancher, the President can reverse the agency action. Or, if the Secretary of the Department of the Interior adds a species to the list of threatened or endangered species, and the Secretary of Agriculture and the President determine that recovering that species may have an adverse--may have an adverse-- economic impact on a farmer or a rancher, the President can reverse that action. When Federal agencies are considering the actions they are required to take under the law, the agencies consider the cost, and weigh the cost with the benefits the actions will have before proposing them. Finally, the amendment does not consider the necessity of protecting our environment when considering reversing an agency action; therefore, I oppose the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Karen Nystrom Meyer was appointed to serve as the Executive Vice President of the Vermont Medical Society (VMS) in 1988. Throughout her tenure in office, Karen's work has been characterized by great integrity, compassion and a strong understanding of the critical role physicians play in improving the quality of life in the Green Mountain State. Many Vermonters shared my sense of loss when Karen Meyer recently announced her resignation in order to accept a new position in the field of higher education. The fourteen years she led the society were years of great change and accomplishment for the organization. It was Karen's first job as an office assistant in a large internal medicine practice that gave her a real appreciation for the struggles and rewards of practicing medicine. The first woman executive of a State medical society in the country, she completely restructured the governance of the society moving from the traditional House of Delegates representative structure to an annual membership meeting format where each VMS member may participate in making Society policy. While Vermont was the first State to restructure its governance structure in this way, many other State societies have followed Vermont's lead. During Karen's tenure at VMS, the society was able to achieve many of its policy initiatives at the State and Federal level. These include passing the ``Clean Indoor Air Act,'' supporting lead screening for children, ensuring coverage of clinical trials, increasing access to health care for Vermonters, funding anti-tobacco programs, and developing a strong education program for physicians around end-of life care. Karen was also instrumental in helping to establish the Vermont Program for Quality in Health Care (VPQHC). Over the years, VPQHC has achieved national recognition for its important work developing clinical guidelines, reporting on health care quality in Vermont and educating physicians and practitioners. Karen has also demonstrated outstanding leadership and gained national recognition for her work with the American Medical Association and the American Association of Medical Society Executives, where she has participated on many work groups and policy teams. Prior to becoming Executive Vice President of the Vermont Medical Society, Karen was the Commissioner of Housing and Community Affairs for the State of Vermont. As Commissioner, she worked tirelessly to increase the availability of affordable housing in Vermont. However, I am sure she will say that her most enjoyable job was working for me as a legislative assistant in the 1970's when I represented Vermont in the House of Representatives. Based on our work together, I can personally attest to her grace, competency and sense of humor--all of which are the key characteristics of a successful public servant. While Karen is leaving the medical society, she will continue to play an important role in improving the social fabric of Vermont. She has accepted a new position at the University of Vermont where she will work with the acting President to develop a renewed sense of mission for the University. I know that I speak for thousands of Vermonters in thanking her for extraordinary service to the Vermont Medical Society and conveying our best wishes in her future endeavors.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is the lead authorizing committee for many of the programs authorized in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, I would like to comment on the pending FY 2002 transportation appropriations conference report. Overall, this is an excellent bill and I intend to vote for it. However, there are a few provisions in the highway portion of this legislation that concern me. TEA-21 represented a carefully negotiated compromise between many different points of view, numerous committees, and the entire House and Senate. One key provision of this compromise legislation was Revenue Aligned Budget Authority--RABA--which ensured that obligations from the Highway Trust Fund would equal revenues into the fund, called TEA-21. TEA-21 determined a carefully negotiated breakdown between the share of RABA funds that would flow to the States through the apportionment formulas and the share that would be competitively distributed through the allocated programs. Unfortunately, the conference report makes significant changes to the authorization for RABA funding. As it has done in each of the past 2 years, the conference report ignores the authorized distribution of funds for allocated programs under RABA. However, this time, rather than giving the money back to the States through the formulas, this legislation earmarks it for special projects. In addition, the conference report earmarks nearly $500 million that was supposed to be distributed to States through the apportionment formulas. As a result, some States will lose significant amounts of highway funding. In essence, I am very concerned that the appropriators are rewriting the apportionment formulas that were so carefully negotiated in TEA-21. I do not mean to begrudge the appropriators their prerogative to earmark funding for specific projects. In fact, I am very pleased that some of the funding is set aside for Vermont. However, at some point we do have to draw the line on earmarking when it threatens the very fabric of a carefully negotiated authorization. Unfortunately, this year we may have finally crossed that line. I look forward to working with the appropriators next year and throughout the reauthorization process to make sure we do a better job of maintaining the integrity of TEA-21 while providing the appropriators flexibility within the guidelines set forth in that law. TEA-21 is a delicately balanced piece of legislation and we must be careful not to upset that balance. I yield back any time I have.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to draw my Colleagues' attention to an important initiative that is taking shape in Vermont. On Monday of this week, I attended a very special ceremony at Lawrence Barnes School in Burlington to kick off a program called Kids to Kids. The event was organized by Vermont Boy and Girl Scouts and its goal is simple--a drive to collect and send warm clothing to Afghan children. My wife, Liz, and I wholeheartedly agreed to be honorary co-chairs of this program and we are pleased to be part of a mission that involves the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, the Islamic Society of Vermont, the National Guard and the business community. We in Vermont know the importance of being well-prepared for the frigid winter months, and we are fortunate to be in a position to help. But I am particularly pleased that the impetus for this clothing drive has come from the children. Vermonters have always stood eager and ready to lend a hand to those in need, and it fascinates me to see how this tradition passes from one generation to the next. It is the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and school children of Vermont who will make this campaign a success, and the importance of their role cannot be stressed enough. This campaign is so much more than simply a gesture of good will. It is a matter of saving lives. Thousands of children have fled Afghanistan with nothing more than the clothing on their backs. The flood of Afghan refugees started many years ago, and now there are many thousands of displaced children living in refugee camps. Many of these children are suffering under conditions that no child should have to bear. They are hungry and they are cold. With winter setting in, something like a warm winter sweater, which so many of us take for granted, is a luxury item that is far beyond their reach. From our small State to Afghan refugee camps, the boys and girls of Vermont are proving that they can make a difference. I am certain their ``good turn'' will be as rewarding for them as it is for the children of Afghanistan.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the VA-HUD conference report, H.R. 2620. I appreciate the conferee's recognition of the importance of the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement budget, as well as full funding for state revolving loan funds. These are priorities for the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Another priority for the Committee is ensuring the American public that when they turn on their faucets in their homes and businesses, day care centers and hospitals, they will fill their cups with clean, safe water. The new standard for arsenic in drinking water is a welcome measure to improve the quality of drinking water nationwide. Earlier this year, I was concerned when this Administration announced its intention to review the new, lower arsenic standard issued by the last Administration. Last week, I was relieved when EPA Administrator Whitman announced her intention to abide by the 10 parts per billion standard as well as the 2006 compliance date. As Administrator Whitman stated in her letter to me on October 31st, the science clearly supports an arsenic standard no higher than 10 parts per billion. Over the past several months, three new independent scientific studies have been conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and EPA's Science Advisory Board. These studies tell us that arsenic in drinking water is a public health concern, and that the levels allowed by current law are much too high. In fact, these studies support a standard lower than 10 parts per billion. EPA tells me they have received more than 55,000 comments from the public on this subject. Clearly, this new, lower standard confers an important protection, supported by many of our citizens. I am aware of the concerns that some of my colleagues have expressed about the ability of small communities to comply with the new arsenic standard. I have read the conference report language directing EPA to study this issue, and I look forward to receiving EPA's report. Indeed, with the significant public health concern associated with arsenic in drinking water, we care greatly that all communities are able to comply. Although current law contains affordability criteria as well as waiver and variance provisions, I would hope that we can provide financial assistance to these communities, if they need it, so that they can comply with the new standard in accordance with the compliance deadline and without having to avail themselves of these mechanisms. With such a pressing health issue at stake, what the public needs is timely compliance, not delay. I also thank the conferees for their attention to a hazardous waste issue known as the ``mixture and derived from rule.'' While EPA will continue to pursue exemptions for certain low-risk wastes, the conferees' commitment to supporting exemptions only where sound science applies will ensure protection of human health and the environment. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, thank Chairman Reid for including funding in this bill for small wind programs being developed in the State of Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman and reiterate my appreciation for his longstanding interests in national energy issues, including his support of Federal renewable energy programs to increase domestic energy security. Mr. President, I would like to also mention my appreciation for Gov. Howard Dean's leadership on Vermont energy initiatives. Governor Dean and his agencies have been involved in discussions with the Vermont ski areas on the opportunities presented by the initiative outlined here. It is my expectation that these parties, along with other leaders in the wind energy industry and with the Vermont utility companies, are prepared to work cooperatively to generate useful results in a prompt and efficient manner. national center for neurogenetic research and computational genomics

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman for his leadership and support of this program. Vermont has been a leader in wind energy development, with some of our Nation's most prominent wind energy manufacturers being located in my home State. In cooperation with the wind energy industry and the Vermont utilities, the Vermont Department of Public Service has conducted a statewide inventory of potential wind sites to determine the best sites in terms of natural wind currents. The results are quite impressive and encouraging. As the chairman knows, we have many ski areas operating on the scenic mountains of Vermont, and the research confirms that these ski areas, which are also significant electricity users, also have great potential for wind energy production. Indeed, the Vermont Ski Areas Association, in cooperation with several of its member resorts, is determined to be a national leader in the development of efficient, environmentally friendly alternative energy resources, including wind energy. While there have been discussions for a couple years now of potential opportunities for distributed generation at Vermont ski areas, we have yet to analyze the full scope of the issues involved. We know, for example, that there are economic thresholds to be identified, but specific profiles of energy use at Vermont ski areas have not been established. We know there are permitting issues, some procedural and some a matter of policy, and these need further definition. We know that there are energy regulatory issues, such as interconnection and metering rules, and these need to be identified in a full and comprehensive manner. While I am speaking in terms of wind energy projects being considered by Vermont ski areas, many of the issues would pertain to other alternative energy projects and other distributive generation projects in Vermont. If I can indulge the chairman further, is it your intention that a portion of these funds be used to help identify potential barriers to wind energy development, including but not limited to the economic and regulatory issues I have mentioned here?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chairman. Is it also the committee's intention that the Vermont Department of Public Service, as recipient of this funding, would work in cooperation with other State agencies, such as the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Does the chairman envision that the Department will work cooperatively with the Vermont Ski Areas Association to define a specific scope of work supported by a portion of these funds and to identify the most efficient and expedient methods for conducting such work, including the selection of consultants to assist in this process?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Finally, I know the Chairman is familiar with other initiatives underway in the State of Vermont with the support of the Department of Energy. I know the people of Vermont appreciate the Department's assistance as well as the chairman's leadership in encouraging that support. Given the Department's prior experience with related studies, such as the remote generation grant, is it the committee's expectation that the funds appropriated by this act be available to build upon the findings and recommendations of previous, related efforts? Moreover, is it the committee's expectation that the work products include an analysis of the economics of wind and alternative energy opportunities at Vermont ski areas, an analysis of the environmental permitting issues, and an analysis of the energy regulatory issues?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the National Historic Barn Preservation Act of 2001. As I am sure my colleagues agree, historic barns are some of America's greatest national treasures symbolizing the agriculture foundations upon which our Nation was founded. Unfortunately, many are in danger of falling beyond repair. These symbols of the American spirit are a vital component of our cultural heritage and must be preserved. From our agricultural beginnings in Colonial times to the frontiersmen' expansion to the West, barns have been a fixture of the rural American landscape. Unfortunately, Agriculture and farm production has weathered many painful changes over the past decades. These changes have been particularly difficult for small and medium sized farms where most of our nation's historic barns reside. According to a survey conducted by Successful Farming, 65 percent of the farmers surveyed had barns over 50 years old on their property. Our legislation allows these farmers to receive funds administered through States and non-profit organizations to bring their barns into productive use. Preserving these barns will not only ensure their survival for generations to come, it will also provide many practical benefits to the communities and economies that surround them. Specifically, this bill will allow small and medium-sized farms to make necessary investments in their production facilities to keep their farms working by providing direct grants. In hard times, small and medium-sized farms have had to choose between making improvements on a historic structure on their property or investing in machinery to keep their existing operations running. Between 1982 and 1997, our nation saw a 15 percent decline in the number of farms in use, averaging a loss of 22,000 farms per year. This bill will ensure the economic viability of these farms by helping farmers preserve their historic structures and maintain essential investments. Given our current economic outlook, this bill will be particularly beneficial. Also, preserving historic barns helps ensure that farmers keep their land in agricultural use. This has a tremendous effect in preventing sprawl from encroaching on rural communities. It is estimated that 3.6 million acres of farmland is removed from agricultural use each year. This is a sensible bill that ensures the preservation of historic barns in ways individual farmers want. The National Trust for Historic Preservation recently conducted a survey asking farmers how they could preserve historic barns on their property. The number one response from these farmers was to create a national grant program, exactly what this legislation does. This bill enjoys wide support and has been endorsed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to preserve our Nation's historic barns for the prosperity of future generations and the well-being of our rural communities. I ask that a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I rise before you today to introduce the Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development Act. This legislation authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide funding to support research projects on critical infrastructure protection for water supply systems. Our Nation's water supply system is truly unique. It uses a decentralized, community-based approach to provide superior water services to all citizens of the United States. Here, we turn on the tap in our homes and receive clean, fresh water without giving it much thought. This not the way water systems operate throughout the world. A 1997 United Nations report on the state of water resources worldwide states that at least one-fifth of all people do not have access to safe drinking water, and more than one-half lack adequate sanitation. Quoting from the report: The World Health Organization estimates that a total of more than five million people die each year just from diseases caused by unsafe drinking water, and a lack of sanitation and water for hygiene. Provision of safe drinking water and sanitation could reduce the amount of illness and death by as much as three-quarters, depending on the disease. In this country, we often take our water system for granted. When considered in the international context, the true value of our water system becomes more apparent. We truly have something to protect. During my tenure as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have been evaluating the state of our Nation's water infrastructure, both drinking water and wastewater. It is clear that we have work to do to modernize our existing systems and ensure that we continue to provide clean, safe water to our citizens into the future. Our discussions in the Committee tend to focus on infrastructure replacement needs, the funds that will be required, and the extent of the federal role. I am committed to this process, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on legislation that we plan to introduce early next year. However, today, I rise to speak to you about another aspect of our Nation's water infrastructure--security. Since the events of September 11, I have worked with the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that we are taking the steps necessary to protect our nation's water infrastructure system during these times. There are many short term actions that have already been taken. Based on the recommendations of Presidential Decision Directive 63, issued by President Clinton in 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency and its industry partner, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, have established a communications system, a water infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, designed to provide real-time threat assessment data to water utilities throughout the nation. Through this partnership, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies are working to develop generic assessment tools that individual water utilities can use to assess their facilities for potential physical and cyber threats. I believe that the rapid completion of both these tools and the individual assessments is imperative. In early October, I sent a letter to the President with Senators Smith, Graham, and Crapo and Representatives Tauzin, Dingell, Gillmor, and Pallone requesting that he use a portion of the $20 billion of discretionary funds provided to the Administration by Congress this year to provide assistance for these assessments to water utilities. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Smith will take us one step further by authorizing support of both ongoing efforts under Presidential Decision Directive 63 and new research to assess potential threats to our water supply system and develop solutions. This legislation authorizes twelve million dollars per year from 2002 to 2007 for the Environmental Protection Agency to use for grants to or cooperative agreements with research institutions. Projects conducted under these agreements will be used to conduct research addressing physical and cyber threats at water supply systems, improvements in information sharing and analysis efforts, and technical assistance and training. These projects will address both drinking water and wastewater systems that make up our nation's water supply infrastructure. Eligible research institutions will include public and private entities, including national laboratories that perform research that will improve the security of water supply systems. Our legislation includes a provision to ensure that those entities conducting this research have the ability to effectively safeguard sensitive information. Individual projects will fall into a series of categories designed to develop the information we need to protect our water supply system nationwide. First, projects will assess the security issues for water supply systems by conducting assessments and developing and refining vulnerability assessment tools. Second, projects will protect water supply systems from potential threats by developing technologies, processes, guidelines, standards, and procedures for the purpose of protecting water supply systems. Projects will also develop real-time monitoring systems to protect against chemical, biological, or radiological attack. Third, projects will develop technologies and processes for addressing the mitigation, response and recovery of biological, chemical and radiological contamination of water supply systems. Fourth, projects will implement requirements of Presidential Decision Directive 63 by refining and operating the Information Sharing and Analysis Center to capture and share threats, events and best practices. Finally, projects will test and evaluate new technologies and processes by developing regional ``pilot facilities'' to demonstrate upgraded security systems, assess new technologies, and to determine operational and cost impacts due to enhanced security. Individual awards may not exceed one million dollars. Test and evaluation projects will be cost-shared on a 50-50 basis. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and other efforts to enhance the security of our Nation's water infrastructure in the weeks, months, and years to come. We truly have something to protect; clean, safe, fresh water is worth our investment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I rise before you today to introduce the Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development Act. This legislation authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide funding to support research projects on critical infrastructure protection for water supply systems. Our Nation's water supply system is truly unique. It uses a decentralized, community-based approach to provide superior water services to all citizens of the United States. Here, we turn on the tap in our homes and receive clean, fresh water without giving it much thought. This not the way water systems operate throughout the world. A 1997 United Nations report on the state of water resources worldwide states that at least one-fifth of all people do not have access to safe drinking water, and more than one-half lack adequate sanitation. Quoting from the report: The World Health Organization estimates that a total of more than five million people die each year just from diseases caused by unsafe drinking water, and a lack of sanitation and water for hygiene. Provision of safe drinking water and sanitation could reduce the amount of illness and death by as much as three-quarters, depending on the disease. In this country, we often take our water system for granted. When considered in the international context, the true value of our water system becomes more apparent. We truly have something to protect. During my tenure as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have been evaluating the state of our Nation's water infrastructure, both drinking water and wastewater. It is clear that we have work to do to modernize our existing systems and ensure that we continue to provide clean, safe water to our citizens into the future. Our discussions in the Committee tend to focus on infrastructure replacement needs, the funds that will be required, and the extent of the federal role. I am committed to this process, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on legislation that we plan to introduce early next year. However, today, I rise to speak to you about another aspect of our Nation's water infrastructure--security. Since the events of September 11, I have worked with the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that we are taking the steps necessary to protect our nation's water infrastructure system during these times. There are many short term actions that have already been taken. Based on the recommendations of Presidential Decision Directive 63, issued by President Clinton in 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency and its industry partner, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, have established a communications system, a water infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, designed to provide real-time threat assessment data to water utilities throughout the nation. Through this partnership, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies are working to develop generic assessment tools that individual water utilities can use to assess their facilities for potential physical and cyber threats. I believe that the rapid completion of both these tools and the individual assessments is imperative. In early October, I sent a letter to the President with Senators Smith, Graham, and Crapo and Representatives Tauzin, Dingell, Gillmor, and Pallone requesting that he use a portion of the $20 billion of discretionary funds provided to the Administration by Congress this year to provide assistance for these assessments to water utilities. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Smith will take us one step further by authorizing support of both ongoing efforts under Presidential Decision Directive 63 and new research to assess potential threats to our water supply system and develop solutions. This legislation authorizes twelve million dollars per year from 2002 to 2007 for the Environmental Protection Agency to use for grants to or cooperative agreements with research institutions. Projects conducted under these agreements will be used to conduct research addressing physical and cyber threats at water supply systems, improvements in information sharing and analysis efforts, and technical assistance and training. These projects will address both drinking water and wastewater systems that make up our nation's water supply infrastructure. Eligible research institutions will include public and private entities, including national laboratories that perform research that will improve the security of water supply systems. Our legislation includes a provision to ensure that those entities conducting this research have the ability to effectively safeguard sensitive information. Individual projects will fall into a series of categories designed to develop the information we need to protect our water supply system nationwide. First, projects will assess the security issues for water supply systems by conducting assessments and developing and refining vulnerability assessment tools. Second, projects will protect water supply systems from potential threats by developing technologies, processes, guidelines, standards, and procedures for the purpose of protecting water supply systems. Projects will also develop real-time monitoring systems to protect against chemical, biological, or radiological attack. Third, projects will develop technologies and processes for addressing the mitigation, response and recovery of biological, chemical and radiological contamination of water supply systems. Fourth, projects will implement requirements of Presidential Decision Directive 63 by refining and operating the Information Sharing and Analysis Center to capture and share threats, events and best practices. Finally, projects will test and evaluate new technologies and processes by developing regional ``pilot facilities'' to demonstrate upgraded security systems, assess new technologies, and to determine operational and cost impacts due to enhanced security. Individual awards may not exceed one million dollars. Test and evaluation projects will be cost-shared on a 50-50 basis. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and other efforts to enhance the security of our Nation's water infrastructure in the weeks, months, and years to come. We truly have something to protect; clean, safe, fresh water is worth our investment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, today I rise to recognize the contributions of S. Lane Faison, Jr., to American art education and museums, and to acknowledge with gratitude, his 20-year service as a trustee of the Bennington Museum in Bennington, Vermont. Professor Faison's seventy year career as an art history teacher, curator, scholar, and administrator reflects his significant efforts in the advancement of art, and its importance to our cultural identity. His scholarly influence has been extensive, and he has created an extraordinary legacy that he has generously shared with his community. Since 1981, Professor Faison has given his time and expertise as a highly valued and appreciated trustee of the Bennington Museum. It is very fitting that the Bennington Museum Board of Trustees has chosen to honor him through the establishment of a fund designated exclusively for enhancing exhibitions. It is my pleasure to acknowledge the ``S. Lane Faison, Jr., Exhibition Endowment Fund'' and to congratulate Professor Faison on the establishment of this fund in his honor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the energy policy-related amendments filed by the Senator from Oklahoma. While I support moving forward with comprehensive national energy policy, the underlying bill is too important to our national security to bog it down with controversial amendments. There are many substantive problems with these amendments, not the least of which is their probable negative impact on public health and environmental quality. They take us back to the polluting past, rather than forward into a cleaner, more efficient and sustainable future. There are also serious procedural problems with moving on these amendments. The committees of jurisdiction, including the Environment and Public Works Committee, have not completed work on important parts of comprehensive energy legislation. Also, I would remind Senators that the administration has completed very few, if any, of the reports recommended by the Vice-President's National Energy Policy Development group. I believe these reports were intended to inform and justify to the public and Congress the need for any changes to existing law and programs. These amendments drive us further and further away from making the truly fundamental changes in our national energy policy that are necessary to address global climate change. The amendments will dramatically increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That further violates our commitment in the Rio Agreement to reduce to 1990 levels. The next Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change begins in late October. Despite the terrorist attacks on our Nation, the attendees will hope for U.S. leadership to combat global warming. Whatever the administration may present, I hope the message from the U.S. Senate will not be the recent adoption of a national energy policy that blatantly undermines our Senate-ratified commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The underlying bill already sets us up to violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty. That is enough to weigh down one bill. We should not further encroach on the good will of our global neighbors at a time when we are seeking their support in our efforts against terrorism. I urge the defeat of these amendments when and if they are offered.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield.