Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am aware of the situations the Senator describes. I am just concerned about the methodology being utilized to try to solve that. I would like to work together with the members of the committee to try to see if we can find common ground.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the tragedy that has befallen America is only just beginning to fully sink in. The horror is so unimaginable, the devastation so great and the suffering it leaves in its wake is almost beyond our comprehension. We feel we have all, personally, been dealt a great blow, no matter where we live, whether or not we knew any of the victims. Our hearts go out to the many, many families who are suffering, and in a very real sense, we feel as if we are one family together today. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Federal Emergency Management Agency--FEMA--I pledge the full support of the committee to the relief effort. I would like to read the text of a letter that my committee sent to the President today: Dear Mr. President: We are writing to commend you and the Administration for the Federal Government's response to the horrific terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. In particular, we are encouraged and impressed by the organization and coordination at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We and our staff stand ready to assist you in your efforts in any way, including making any immediate changes to statutes or program funding levels within the Committee's jurisdiction that are necessary to implement measures to save lives and restore safety and order as quickly as possible. Thank you for your resolve and determination. Sincerely, Members of the Committee of Environment and Public Works. Of the thousands of people working in the World Trade Center complex, 2,600 are Federal employees, working for a variety of Federal agencies. The General Services Administration is working diligently to find temporary office space so that these employees may get back to work as soon as possible. America picks up and goes on. We are shaken but we are not bowed. We are also comforted by the stories of great heroism that come flooding out of this tragedy, the stories of people going back for friends, office workers carrying disabled colleagues down 80 flights of stairs, firefighters and police rushing up the stricken towers in their frantic effort to save lives. Still today, we are watching rescue workers who have not slept in 2 days, continuing to dig through the rubble, exposing themselves to great hazards, running on adrenaline from the news that three people were just found alive today. As more information comes to light, we are seeing a picture emerge of another great act of heroism--the crashing of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. From what we can glean from phone calls from passengers on that flight, realizing that the hijackers planned to crash their plane and learning that two hijacked planes had just crashed into the World Trade Center, passengers decided to take action. We can only surmise from their last words to family members that several passengers confronted the hijackers and the plane was prevented from completing its mission. It is unlikely that we will know for sure what target the hijackers had in mind, but we can be fairly certain that brave passengers saved the lives of many hundreds or even thousands of people, and maybe even our own lives. I believe that all of America should be deeply grateful to them and their courage in the face of death. America has closed ranks behind its President and its people. I am also very pleased that so many of our allies have closed ranks behind us. Yesterday, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--NATO--for the first time in its 52-year history, invoked collective defense arrangements under Article 5 of its Charter that states that an attack upon one member of the alliance is viewed as an attack upon all. This reiteration of NATO solidarity is unprecedented and will be most helpful in formulating a unified response. Condolences and offers of assistance have poured in from all regions of the world, giving us heart as we focus on the task ahead of us. Fighting terrorism is an exceedingly difficult task. It will take applying ourselves in a way we have never done before. Ferreting out terrorists and destroying their networks will be long and arduous work. It will require a concerted international effort and potentially great patience. We will need the strong cooperation of our allies, and we will need to reach out to nations that are not our traditional allies. Fighting terrorism is usually a frustrating task, as targets are elusive and the means of terror difficult to control. We still hope to learn a great deal more about the perpetrators of this tragedy and uncover those who helped them. I expect that we will take firm action in retaliation. But this may take time, and it must be done in a manner that will not unnecessarily provoke reprisals or generate additional acts of terrorism. I am confident that American resolve will remain firm no matter how long or how difficult this fight. In closing, I would like to recognize the contributions to the relief effort from my small State of Vermont. The Vermont Air Guard has already flown many hours of additional missions as part of the effort to maintain security over American airspace. Vermont doctors, nurses, firefighters, and rescue workers have volunteered in great numbers to help. All over the State, people have lined up to give blood. True to their history, Vermonters are quick to offer their help. I see this strength replicated all across America. This makes me, and all Americans, proud.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I join in the accolades. I know I speak 100 percent for the Independents here when I say that, having experienced the tremendous responsibility that is carried by Elizabeth. But I also know her effectiveness. There is not a Senator here who has not been saved at least once, twice, or three times out of embarrassment by being astutely and highly reminded that you forgot to do something, but, most of all, just the effectiveness and the confidence that all of us have in Elizabeth, making sure that everything is fair and square. She has been fantastic. I agree with every word the Senator said, and I am sure I speak for all Members not here.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I rise today to voice my frustration about the events that unfolded today regarding the Agricultural Economic Assistance Act. I am disappointed for one reason. This legislation leaves my farmers behind. Of the $5.5 billion in this bill, only a very small amount goes to Vermont or any of the farms in our area of the country. Only $1.5 million out of the $5.5 billion in this package will reach Vermonters. That amounts to only about $1,000 per farm. Mr. President, 50 percent of the money goes to 10 States. Our dairy farmers are the hardest working, most efficient. The compact has no Federal cost. It is without question that the states in the Northeast are left out. During the proceedings on this bill, there was much talk about the amount of the overall spending package. As we continue to wrestle with budget and spending concerns, I encourage my colleagues to take a look at a program that provides assistance and stability for farmers at no cost to the federal government, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact was established to restore the regulatory authority of the six New England states over the New England dairy marketplace. This authority, however, must be granted by Congress. By gaining the consent of Congress in 1996, the Northeast Dairy Compact has allowed the compact commission to regulate milk pricing in the region. Since July of 1997, when the compact commission first set the Class I over-order price at $16.94, the Northeast Dairy Compact has proven to be a great success--providing farmers with a fair price for their milk, protecting consumers from price spikes, reducing market dependency upon milk from a single source, controlling excess supply, and helping to preserve rural landscapes by strengthening farm communities. Farmers across our Nation face radically different conditions and factors of production. Differences in climate, transportation, feed, energy, and land value validate the need for regional pricing. Compacts allow states to address these differences and create a price level that is appropriate for producers, processors, retailers and consumers. The stability created by the compact pricing mechanism is important for several reasons. It guarantees farmers a fair price for their product and allows them to plan for the future. Farmers, knowing that they can count on a fair price, can allocate money to purchase and repair machinery, improve farming practices, and above all, stay in business. Opponents of compacts argue that compacts leads to overproduction. These allegations, however, are unfounded. The Northeast Dairy Compact has not led to overproduction during its first 4 years. In fact, during 2000, the Northeast Dairy Compact states produced 4.7 billion pounds of milk, a 0.6 percent reduction from 1999. Since the Northeast Dairy Compact has been in effect, milk production in the region has risen by just 2.2 percent. Nationally, milk production rose 7.4 percent from 1997 to 2000. Over this same period, California, the largest milk producing state in the country, increased its milk production by 16.9 percent. Originally created as a three-year pilot program, the Northeast Dairy Compact has been extremely successful in demonstrating the merits of compacts. We no longer need to speculate about the potential effects of compacts. We now have the hard evidence--they are good for farmers, good for consumers, and good for the environment. As has been stated by several of my colleagues today, we, who represent the Northeast will do everything in our power to secure the survival of our family farms. We look forward to working throughout this year to make sure the dairy compact is, again, allowed to show the benefits to this Nation of effective farming which results in no cost to the Government. It is certainly hard for me to understand why we get so much criticism. It is the only farm program that doesn't cost the Federal Government money, and it is one of the first on some people's lists of programs to get rid of. It is entirely unbelievable and incomprehensible. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as was pointed out, I am chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over this matter. I appreciate the Senator from Arizona bringing to the attention of this body the seriousness of the freshwater problems that we have in this country. When I became the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, one of my top priorities was to craft legislation to ensure that the Federal Government meet its responsibilities to assist communities in meeting their drinking water and waste water infrastructure needs. Under the leadership of our ranking member, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, the committee has already begun to investigate proper procedures to ensure that every community in this country has good freshwater and is able to dispose of their waste water. I think it is important that we discuss this, and it has been brought up. But I would have to object very strenuously to the amendment. It is under the jurisdiction of our committee, and we are dedicated to trying to help make sure that we have better quality water and the quantity of funds available for making sure that we improve our freshwater system. I have to object to the amendment on the basis that it is under the jurisdiction of my committee. But I will certainly do all I can to work with the Senator from Arizona as we move forward in the process of developing a better system. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to table the pending amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I withdraw my motion to table at this time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the amendment to the VA/HUD appropriations bill offered by Senator Kyl. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am the new Chair, has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. Through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund provisions of this act, Federal funding is provided to communities throughout the Nation to protect water quality. Senator Kyl's amendment would significantly alter the formula'' used in the ``SRF'' to allocate these federal funds among States. Last evening, in the debate related to arsenic, many Senators noted the tremendous financial challenge that communities face in continuing to provide clean, affordable drinking water. It is important to recognize that these communities face an equally tremendous challenge when it comes to keeping pace with the wastewater treatment, stormwater management, and other types of water infrastructure they need to protect water quality. The Clean Water SRF was specifically designed to help communities meet these water infrastructure needs. However, over the next 20 years, the water infrastructure needs of our Nation are estimated to be as much as $1 trillion--$1 trillion. The current annual level of funding provided through the SRF--averaging roughly $1 billion per year--comes nowhere near meeting needs of this magnitude. Because these funds are so desperately needed by so many communities, the Senate should proceed very cautiously when making changes to the Clean Water SRF. When I became the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I stated that one of my top priorities was to craft legislation to ensure that the Federal Government meets its responsibility to assist communities in meeting their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs. Under the leadership of the now ranking member, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, the committee has already begun this process. I am committed to continuing this effort, and I look forward to working closely with Senator Smith, the chair and ranking member of our Water Subcommittee, and other members of the committee and the Senate as we move forward. The Environment and Public Works Committee will carefully consider a number of issues critical to meeting our national water infrastructure needs as this legislation develops. Among these issues will be the subject addressed by Senator Kyl's amendment--the allocation of money to States through the Clean Water SRF. We will be thoroughly studying the current ``formula'' used for allocating Federal funds by this program and, if appropriate, we will modify it to ensure it is fair and adequately serves the Nation. As I mentioned previously, the tremendous water infrastructure needs faced by our Nation--coupled with inadequacy of Federal resources currently available to help communities meet them--demands that we proceed cautiously. I am concerned that changing the funding ``formula'' for the Clean Water SRF in an appropriations bill, as we rush to complete Senate business before August recess, is not such a cautious approach. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment, and allow the Environment and Public Works Committee the opportunity to craft legislation that reflects a carefully and thorough consideration of the solutions to our Nation's water tremendous infrastructure needs.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished manager of the bill in a brief colloquy regarding funding for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). As she knows, for many years now, NESCAUM has received support in the VA-HUD conference reports. The $300,000 in funds provided in previous Subcommittee bills has enabled the organization to do outstanding work that is helping to protect the health and welfare of citizens in Vermont and the Northeast from air pollution.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair for her consideration. National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI)

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, together with Senators Bingaman, Hatch, Grassley, Daschle, Durbin, Bond, and Chafee, I am today introducing the Conservation Tax Incentives Act of 2001. As an incentive for voluntary conservation of environmentally significant land, this bill allows landowners to exclude from income fifty percent of the gain they realize on sales, for conservation purposes, of land or easements in land. This proposal, included in President Bush's Budget Blueprint, was a central element in his environmental platform during the campaign. It is a sensible, modest tax proposal to help the environment and is supported by a wide range of groups, including the American Farm Bureau, the Association of State Foresters, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Nature Conservancy. Landowners have a stake in the quality of life of their communities' environment. They also have a right to reap the economic benefits of their investments in land. Landowners able to make charitable contributions of land for conservation purposes can realize tax benefits that make it possible to achieve both their financial and conservation goals. For many taxpayers, however, in Vermont and elsewhere throughout the country, holdings in land represent a major financial asset they cannot afford to donate. Others may not have sufficient income to be able to take full advantage of the tax benefit of a charitable donation. For these landowners, a sale of the land for development may be the only viable way to realize the full economic return on their investment in land. We need new federal tax incentives to help these ``land-rich, cash-poor'' landowners protect their investments and at the same time achieve permanent conservation interests. This bill provides a market-based, voluntary land conservation incentive to help those who own and want to conserve environmentally sensitive land but cannot afford to give it away. The need for this bill has never been more pressing. We are consuming land at an alarming pace. The pace of land development exceeds by far both the rate of population growth and the rate of open space conservation. In the United States, two acres of farmland per minute, about a million acres per year, are lost to development. Almost one- third of the species in the United States are extinct or under threat of extinction. Loss of open space not only threatens biodiversity, but also quality of life. It increases traffic congestion, and air and water pollution; it decreases opportunities for recreation; and it threatens productive agricultural land. Healthy communities are made up to complex systems of forests, productive soils, rivers, and other interdependent resources. Deforestation, the paving over of agricultural land, the filling-in of wetlands, and urban sprawl are consuming the landscape and straining the balance of wild and human habitat. The sustainability of a healthy quality of life is increasingly in jeopardy. My bill's approach to these problems creates no new regulatory authority; it requires no appropriations; and it has no new attempts to define conservation. It creates a simple, voluntary incentive for private, market-rate sales of land, or interests in land, to government agencies or qualified non-profit organizations. Incorporating definitions and concepts that already exist in the tax code, this bill provides substantial conservation benefits at a minimal cost--about $66 million per year, as estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Projections show that every year the bill could protect land valued at up to $150 million. In drafting the bill, we were careful to ensure that land acquired with this new tax incentive would truly serve conservation purposes. The only qualified purchasers are publicly supported conservation charitable organizations and governmental natural resource and environmental agencies; these entities have long and respected records of serving the public interest in acquiring and managing land for conservation purposes. The bill builds on that record of trust and responsible stewardship without imposing new and cumbersome requirements to ensure that the public interest is served. In addition, the bill requires a statement by the conservation purchasers memorializing their intent to serve the specified conservation purposes. This language was crafted to protect the public's conservation investment and does not create a tax-driven land use restriction. In essence, we want to make sure that the intention to conserve land does not rob the land of the commercial value for which the landowner must be compensated. The required statement of the purchaser's intent should not be construed to impose restrictions on the property or covenants running with the land, which might result in an appraisal that could deny sellers the full value of their land. Property should be appraised at its unencumbered, full fair market value. Furthermore, the value of property in the hands of the purchasing conservation entity should be its full fair market value, regardless of the purchaser's intent of conservation and regardless of the required statement of intent. This principle is important, because it means that a land trust could serve as the original conservation purchaser and subsequently transfer the property to another cooperating conservation purchaser, such as a governmental agency, receiving the full fair market value on the subsequent transfer. This bill has broad bipartisan support. In the 106th Congress, a majority of the Members of the Senate Finance Committee supported it as an element of the Community Renewal and New Markets Act. It is a modest, bipartisan, innovative proposal that should be a part of this year's environment and tax agenda, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish renewable energy targets for electricity sales, an electric systems benefit fund, and net metering programs to ensure a clean, sustainable energy future. I am pleased to be joined by Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kerry in introducing the ``Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Investment Act of 2001''. This bill will help bring renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies from the minds of the American entrepreneur to the fields of the American farmer, to the hills where strong winds blow, and to the roofs of our homes. Investing in and utilizing these technologies offers tremendous benefits for the health of our citizens, environment and economy. It is time for our Nation to transition from smokestacks, coal power and smog to a future with windmills, solar power and blue skies. Our Nation has vast, untapped resources than can power our homes and businesses using the heat of the earth, the brilliance of the sun and the strength of the wind. Unlike the limited fossil fuel resources, these sources of energy are forever replacing themselves. All we have to do is harness them. Today, renewables are beginning to take hold. Wind power, for example, is the fastest growing form of energy in the world. Worldwide almost 4,000 megawatts of new wind energy capacity were added in the year 2000. Other forms of renewable energy, such as solar, biomass and geothermal, offer the same potential and the same benefits. These technologies provide high-tech jobs for U.S. workers. They help reduce acid rain and other forms of air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions. They are not subject to supply changes that lead to large fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels and they help us reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels. There is perhaps no better time to push these technologies forward. Our Nation is focused on energy issues make it was in the last decade. We are at crossroads where we can begin to see the end of the path toward a clean, sustainable energy future. Renewable energy is the most important landmark on that path. Let me describe how this bill will make this happen. First, our bill will put in place a Nation-wide wires charge to create an electric system benefit fund. This will help develop renewable energy sources, promote energy efficiency and assist low- income residents meet their energy needs. Second, our legislation will make it cheaper and easier for consumers to install renewable energy sources in their homes, farms, and small business by simplifying the metering process. Third, our bill has a comprehensive disclosure provision, giving consumers honest and verifiable information regarding their energy choices. Finally, our bill will require the suppliers of electricity to include a minimum amount of renewable energy in the products that they sell. We start with 2.5 percent in the first year and work up to 20 percent by the year 2020. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that this program is achievable and will lead to tremendous reductions in air, water and other pollutants that turn our blue skies to grey. Energy Information Administration also found that this program would lead to an 18 percent decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide we release compared to the status quo and ease supply pressures on and prices of natural gas. All these benefits come at the same time that we establish our nation as a leader in developing and manufacturing the cutting edge technologies that will not only power our economy, but the economies of countries all over the world. Our nation's future depends on having clean, reliable, and sustainable sources of energy. With this bill we can ensure that future becomes a reality. At the same time, we can capture the global market for renewable energy and we can increase our energy security. Most importantly, we can know that our children and grandchildren will thank us for giving them a clean, sustainable energy supply. I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in accordance with the rule XXVI (2) of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, adopted by the committee today, July 25, 2001, be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, right now in my home state of Vermont, a very special institution, the Mountain Valley Medical Clinic, MVMC, in Londonderry, VT, is celebrating 25 years of service. Rural clinics such as Mountain Valley, play a critical role in delivering health care, especially in States as rural as Vermont. Twenty-five years ago, it was not unusual for communities such as Londonderry, to receive health care through a single practitioner, who serviced the region. In 1976, as Londonderry's sole practitioner, Dr. Elizabeth Pingree, was retiring, the impending lack of health care in the area became a real concern. A group of involved citizens recognized that people would either be forced to drive great distances to be seen by a physician, or they would go without care. The entire community responded by coming together to create the Mountain Valley Medical Clinic. The founding fathers, and mothers, of Mountain Valley recognized the rapidly expanding need for improved and broader health care services in the area. With tireless energy, enthusiasm and dedication, these key individuals succeeded in generating widespread support throughout the neighboring communities. They raised funds, developed plans, created a board of volunteers, and opened a state-of-the-art, comprehensive, health care facility to serve area residents and visitors. Additionally, they created an infrastructure that served all citizens regardless of their ability to pay. Since opening its doors in 1976, more than 300,000 patients have visited this clinic for care. Over the recent decade, more than 11,000 per year have sought medical assistance. Much of the cost of the care has been curtailed by Medicare, Medicaid, or provided without reimbursement. Staying true to its mission, the dedicated staff and volunteer Board of Directors balanced financial losses, each and every year, with the generous support of the community. As a model rural health care facility, Mountain Valley reminds us that bigger, faster, cheaper, and fancier, do not necessarily translate to better health care. In fact, many part-time residents in this community consider Mountain Valley to be their primary care provider, even though, or perhaps because, they reside in large cities up and down the east coast. I wish other institutions could follow the example of Mountain Valley Health Clinic. As this noteworthy institution celebrates its 25th anniversary, it remains one of a kind. It is unique among its peers throughout the country for its philosophy and independence, but most of all, because it is the product of so many remarkable people and ideas. It is truly part of the communities it serves. Residents and visitors in the Mountain Valley service area have much to be proud of, and grateful for, with the steadfast medical care given by the professionals and staff at Mountain Valley Medical Clinic.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I had occasion with four distinguished Senators to travel through Vermont. We had Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut travel with us to ensure our security. They were wonderful and most efficient. In fact, it is not easy to maneuver four Senators around and keep track of them and their spouses and keep them on schedule. We got to feeling closer to them under those circumstances. They were two wonderful men. I feel a certain sadness of the memories connected with that. They were truly wonderful, and their families, of course, we all got to know after this tragedy. They are fantastic people. I echo the comments of the Senators from Maryland in making sure we watch out for them.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to a woman of great dedication, compassion, and courage. Jill Charles, Artistic Director of the Dorset Theatre Festival and a Dorset, Vermont, resident, will long be remembered by those whose lives she touched as an accomplished artist, a loving mother, a giving mentor, and a dear friend. It is our good fortune that Jill chose to bring her talent and love of theatre to Vermont. In 1968, she arrived in Dorset to work as an apprentice for Fred and Pat Carmichael's Caravan Theatre at the Dorset Playhouse. Subsequently, she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in theatre from the University of Kentucky and was awarded a Master of Fine Arts degree in directing from Boston University. After the Carmichaels retired in 1976, Jill, with co-founder John Nassivera, established the Dorset Theatre Festival. Jill was well known and highly respected for her work with young artists and for the guidance she provided for hundreds of pre- professional actors, designers and technicians who apprenticed under her direction during her twenty-six years as Dorset Theatre Festival Artistic Director. Her interest in the professional growth and emotional well-being of each member of the company was repeatedly reflected in her attention to matters large and small, and in countless acts of personal support and kindness. A woman whose compassion and respect for others extended beyond her professional endeavors in the theatre, Jill was dedicated to her community and to the many humanitarian interests that she held dear. She was a dedicated foster parent for many years, and remained in contact with those children to whom she provided a home. She also was actively involved with the Second Chance Animal Shelter in Bennington, Project Pave (a support group for abused women), Race for the Cure, and the Dorset Congregational Church choir. She was also a founding member of the Cantare a capella singing group in Dorset. The arts and humanities are a powerful force in bringing us together, in stretching our horizons, and in improving the quality of our lives. Jill Charles embodied the gifts of the arts and humanities. She will be greatly missed, but her presence will continue to be felt as her touch ripples outward like the action of a pebble tossed in a pond.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, for recognizing the important role small wind projects play in our energy future. As my colleague knows, the State of Vermont has been looking at the use of small wind projects. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague to provide $500,000 for a small wind project in Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS. To ensure that these systems, which have power capacities of less than 100 kilowatts, continue to play an important role, the committee recognized the need for a set aside for small wind programs. It is correct that the committee believes that not less than $10 million shall be made available for new and ongoing small wind programs?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my colleague for his support of these important small wind energy projects, and I thank him for has continued leadership in making sure that renewable energy will be a large part of our energy mix.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the managers of the energy and water appropriations bill for their commitment to renewable energy. I particularly want to thank Senator Reid for his leadership in bringing additional funding to advance the cause of clean energy in this Nation. Growing problems associated with fossil fuel energy use, including fine particulates and global warming, make it critically important that renewable energy play a much larger part in future energy needs. Each year, the important role renewable energy should play in meeting our future energy needs becomes more apparent. This year 61 Senators joined Senator Bingaman and myself in requesting an increase for renewable energy in this year's budget. I am happy to say that this is seven more Senators than we had last year. I am also happy to say that Chairman Reid and Ranking Member Domenici provided almost $60 million more than last year for renewable energy and $160 million more than was requested by the administration. They recognize the importance of renewable energy and once again demonstrated their strong Senate leadership on this issue. For many years, I have come to this Chamber to offer an amendment on renewable energy. This year is the second year in a row that I come to ask Members to praise--not raise--the renewable energy budget. This is a practice to which I could easily become accustomed to. There is perhaps no better time to push these technologies forward. Our Nation is focused on energy issues unlike it was in the last decade. We are at crossroads where we can begin to see the end of the path toward a clean, sustainable energy future. Renewable energy is the most important landmark on that path. Today, renewables are beginning to take hold. Our faith in these clean energy sources has not been without merit. Wind power, for example, is the fastest growing form of energy in the world. In the United States, my home State of Vermont is a leader in the use of wind power. My wind energy bill with representatives Blanchard and Mineta started this program in the late 1970's. Worldwide almost 4,000 megawatts of new wind energy capacity were added in the year 2000. This year will likely see a similar, if not larger increase. Although much of that capacity was added outside the United States, many of the high-tech jobs needed to make that possible came from inside the United States. And as the use of wind energy goes up, the costs will only come down. The best news of all is that our own wind resources remain largely untapped. Other forms of renewable energy--such as solar, biomass and geothermal--have the same kinds of benefits: These technologies provided high-tech jobs for U.S. workers. They help reduce acid rain and other forms of air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions. They are not subject to the kinds of supply changes that lead to large fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels and they help us reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels. This is good for the health of citizens and for the health of our economy. I thank Senators Reid and Domenici, once again, for their leadership on this issue. I will continue to assist in whatever way I can to ensure that the strong statement made by the Senate today will be included in the final energy and water appropriations bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator for those kind comments, and I assure him I will continue to work to improve our situation in this regard. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 987, As Modified

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, unfortunately, I have to rise in support of the motion to table. I had hoped my good friend from Oregon would agree to withdraw his amendment so that I could hold a hearing and ascertain for him and the public whether or not there should be an exception granted to the Endangered Species Act with respect to this particular problem. Unfortunately, I understand he does not desire to do so. This is a critical issue and for us to summarily do this would be really inconsistent with the purposes of the Endangered Species Act. That act is an important one, and it is one that has saved many species which have resulted in huge breakthroughs in medicine and in other ways. We have to be very careful about what we do with respect to endangered species. So I will support the motion to table.