Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to ask for my colleagues' support for a resolution designating September as Leukemia, Lymphoma and Myeloma Awareness Month. Today, I want to speak specifically about leukemia, a disease that affects nearly 200,000 Americans. Leukemia is a devastating cancer of the blood that will kill almost 23,000 people this year alone. It is rare to find anyone today who does not know someone, a family member or a friend, who has battled leukemia. Recently, one of my former staff members, Jess Eiesland, was diagnosed with leukemia. He is only 28. He left my office in May of this year to follow in his father's footsteps and pursue a career in finance. On June 18th, Jess was diagnosed with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, a form of the disease characterized by the uncontrolled production of immature white blood cells by the bone marrow. Jess is now back in South Dakota with his family and traveling to Minnesota to undergo an 11-week course of chemotherapy in preparation for a bone marrow transplant. In comparison, Jess is one of the lucky ones. His leukemia was caught early and he has just learned that his sister, Laura, is a bone marrow match. This match will reduce Jess' risk of developing severe side effects from the transplant or rejecting the new cells. Only 30 percent of patients in need of a bone marrow transplant have a matching donor in their families. Others have to depend on the kindness of strangers who have registered their bone marrow types with the National Bone Marrow Registry and volunteered as donors. In honor of Jess, a bone marrow registration drive is being held in Room 124 of the Senate Hart building on Friday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Because of the risk of rejection associated with bone marrow transplants and the difficulty in finding donors, the National Institutes of Health and the private sector have developed other promising leukemia treatments, such as cord blood transplants and the pharmaceutical drug, Gleevec, the first of a slew of promising new drugs that target the underlying causes of the disease. To promote these innovative treatments, we must continue to support biomedical research. I applaud the efforts of our distinguished colleagues, Senators Hatch and Dodd, who introduced legislation earlier this year that would encourage cord blood donations and registrations. This legislation has already been reported favorably by the HELP Committee and I hope the full Senate can take it up and pass it soon. Additionally, the Senate has requested a $1 billion dollar funding increase for the NIH in fiscal year 2006 to promote Federal research and innovation. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution designating September as National Leukemia, Lymphoma and Myeloma Awareness Month. Doing so will further disseminate information regarding treatment innovations and will encourage Americans to become bone marrow or cord blood donors.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will be brief but concise. This is not a vote about reducing mercury by 90 percent by 2009 or even 70 percent by the year 2030. That is a red herring. This is not a vote about the opponents' wildly outdated claims on the potential cost or the availability of mercury controls. This is not even a vote about the well-documented and devastating effects of toxic mercury on future generations of children or the Nation's environmental health. Mr. President and Senators, this is a vote about whether the administration failed to comply with the law. We cannot afford to get it wrong now. There will be no going back. After careful review, I have concluded that there was such a failure that this was an intentional and illegal effort to circumvent the law, and that it was designed to benefit big energy companies at the expense of the public health. This failure has been documented in reports by GAO, the Inspector General, in the press, and in testimony before the Environment Committee and the Democratic Policy Committee. Our resolution sends the agency back to the drawing board to get it right and to comply with the law. Mr. President and Senators, it is this simple: Should the administration comply with the Clean Air Act? I think so and will vote yes. If you think so, vote yes on this resolution.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Vermont, the Senators from Maine, and many other Senators in a bipartisan effort to oppose the administration's mishandling of the Clean Air Act. That is what our resolution of disapproval is about. We are here because the Bush administration's mercury rule violates the Clean Air Act. This rule is plainly illegal, it is unwise, and it is definitely unhealthy for Americans living downwind of coal-fired powerplants, especially mothers and their soon-to-be-born children. The administration, with a simple wave of its hands, has used the rules to delay compliance with the mercury control requirements for a decade or longer than the law allows. Our resolution of disapproval is simple enough for even the biggest energy company, and the administration even, to understand. We reject this abuse of the Clean Air Act, and we demand they follow the rules of the land. The law says: Each and every powerplant unit that emits mercury and other toxic air pollutants must take action to reduce these emissions by using maximum available control technology, or MACT. The administration could have gone through the appropriate statutory process to delist and exempt their powerplants from regulation, but that is not what they did. Instead, they made up a whole new deregulatory scheme to help out the big energy companies. But the act does not provide them with that authority. They do not have the luxury of ignoring the laws that regular Americans must follow and that Congress wrote to protect the public's health and the environment. This administration is not above the law. The EPA is allowed to set the MACT standard after considering costs and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements. That they could have done. But, instead, the administration chose to violate a settlement agreement. They shut down an advisory commission because they did not like getting scientifically credible answers on mercury controls and costs. The process used to create this rule was flawed and was intended to delay and obstruct any mercury control requirements whatsoever. In the end, the administration almost wholly adopted the utility industry's proposal on how to regulate mercury emissions. If this is not the proverbial ``fox watching the chicken coop,'' what is? This is not the way the law is supposed to work in America, nor does work in America. I urge my colleagues, and everyone listening, to support our resolution of disapproval and to support this motion to proceed. We deserve a fair up-or-down vote on the administration's rule that illegally exempts big energy companies from having to reduce toxic air pollution wherever it is emitted. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was a brilliant jurist, a devoted public servant, and a person who shared my love of Vermont. Though most Americans knew Chief Justice Rehnquist for his years of service on the Supreme Court, many Vermonters knew him as a neighbor and a friend. Like most who visit our great State, Chief Justice Rehnquist fell in love with Vermont's natural beauty and rural character and purchased a home in Greensboro in 1974. For over 30 years, Chief Justice Rehnquist escaped the humidity and stress of Washington every summer in favor of the picturesque surroundings and quiet charm of Caspian Lake. Whether it was playing cards, visiting Willey's Store, or worshipping at the Greensboro United Church of Christ, Chief Justice Rehnquist immersed himself in the community with a remarkable subtlety and modesty for a man of his stature and prominence. The Chief Justice would also share his knowledge of history, politics, and the law with community members in a lecture that became a much-anticipated summer tradition in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom. Each year, before the State of the Union, I would usually have a chance to chat with the Chief Justice about his time in Vermont. Amidst the chaos and cameras of the Capitol on such a busy night, Chief Justice Rehnquist always found time to reminisce about the summer months he spent in our State. I always enjoyed these brief discussions with such a kind and engaging man who valued life's simple pleasures so dearly. On September 5, the Burlington Free Press, describing the reaction in Greensboro to the Chief Justice's passing, wrote: It wasn't a dignitary that was mourned; it was a guy who liked to walk everywhere and call people by their first names (and expected them to return the favor). It was a guy who had an affinity for Hershey's Special Dark Chocolate bars and Donna Gerow's homemade pumpkin bread. As millions of Americans mourn the loss of one of the most influential people of our time, Vermonters in Greensboro, and around Caspian Lake, mourn a good neighbor, a great friend, and a fellow Vermonter.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to share my views on the final Energy bill conference report now before us. I regret that I will be unable to support this legislation, and I will explain my substantive concerns about the bill in greater detail. But, first, I want to comment on the process that brought us to this point because the process has been very different than the last energy conference report. The last energy conference report to come before the Senate in the 108th Congress contained more than 100 provisions in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. In my role as the ranking member, I came to the floor to share with the Senate that the EPW Committee was not consulted in the development of any of those provisions. That closed-door process did not occur with this conference report, and I believe that was due to the efforts of Senators Domenici and Bingaman. Though neither Senator Inhofe nor I were conferees, we were apprized of conference discussions. Our staff reviewed and provided technical assistance on provisions. For example, we agreed to revise the House's nuclear title to incorporate three nuclear bills reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee. We also worked closely on the ethanol provisions, given their implications for the Clean Air Act. The Senators from New Mexico worked hard to limit the items in the conference report in the EPW Committee's jurisdiction. They faced a very uphill task. The House bill had many troubling environmental provisions that were strongly supported by House conferees. Unfortunately, though, many troubling environmental provisions were removed during conference negotiations, several provisions of concern to me and to several other Democratic members of the EPW Committee remain in the final conference report. I say all this to make clear to the Senate that I am not opposing this bill on process, but on policy. It contains bad environmental policy. It is a missed opportunity with respect to our energy policy. It contains the wrong fiscal priorities with $80 billion in giveaways to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries. And, for those reasons, I feel it is not the right energy policy for America today, and certainly not for the future. I am deeply concerned that the conference report before us does not represent the kind of forward looking, balanced energy policy that our Nation needs. It does not go far enough in reducing our country's reliance on imported oil. Provisions to set a goal to curb our Nation's oil use, overwhelmingly supported in the Senate, were defeated. Provisions in the Senate bill to set a national goal to obtain 10 percent of our Nation's electricity from renewable sources were also stripped in the conference. I have spent my congressional career promoting the use of renewable energy in our country. This Nation has abundant renewable energy sources, from wind to animal methane to geothermal, in every State, and it is in our economic and environmental interest to use them. It is very disappointing to me, as we stand here on the threshold of passing an energy bill that will likely serve as our country's energy policy well into the next decade, that many of the same polluting coal-fired power plants that were operating when I came to Congress are still operating without modern pollution controls. Though this conference report takes an important step by asking the Federal agencies to get roughly 8 percent of their energy from renewable sources in 2020, this should have been an economy-wide goal. It also fails to substantively address many other important issues, such as climate change and the need to improve vehicle fuel economy to give consumers more affordable and less-polluting choices when they buy their family's next automobile. But worst of all, this bill seriously harms the environment. During the conference, along with the majority of Senate Environment Committee minority colleagues, I wrote the conferees listing six of what I believed to be the most troubling environmental provisions of the House-passed bill. Several remain in this bill. I am disappointed that the renewable fuels provisions in the conference report continue to differ significantly from the provisions that were reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee in the last three Congresses. The provisions that my committee reported were the ones contained in the energy legislation that the Senate passed this year and last year. Though we know methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, is environmentally harmful, the conference report does not phase out its use. The Senate bill would have phased out MTBE use nationwide over 4 years. The conference report contains no such ban. In addition, critical language allowing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to pull future gasoline additives off the market if they caused water pollution problems was eliminated. The conferees have included language similar to a provision in the House-passed bill that exempts oil and gas exploration and production activities from the Clean Water Act storm water program. The Clean Water Act requires permits for storm water discharges associated with construction. The conference report changes the act to exempt oil and gas construction from these permits. The scope of the provision is extremely broad. Storm water runoff typically contains pollutants such as oil and grease, chemicals, nutrients, metals, bacteria, and particulates. According to EPA estimates, this change would exempt at least 30,000 small oil and gas sites from clean water requirements. In addition, every construction site in the oil and gas industry larger than 5 acres are exempt from permit requirements. Some of those sites have held permits for 10 years or more. This is a terrible rollback of current law and an unneccessary one. These permits have not been hampering production by these drilling sites, but they do protect the fragile water resources around them. Section 327 of this conference report exempts the practice of hydraulic fracturing to extract coalbed methane from the Safe Drinking Water Act. This practice involves injecting a fluid under pressure into the ground in order to create fractures in rock and capture methane. The primary risk with hydraulic fracturing is drinking water contamination that occurs when fluids used to fracture the rock remains in the ground and reach underground sources of drinking water. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, approximately half of the U.S. population obtains its drinking water from underground water sources. In rural areas, this percentage rises to 95 percent. In its June 2004 study, the EPA reported studies showing that 18-65 percent of injected chemicals can remain stranded in hydraulically fractured formations. This is wrong. The American people do not want enhanced energy production at the expense of the environment, particularly if it jeopardizes their drinking water wells. And, they also do not want enhanced energy production at the expense of their own pocketbook, especially in these times of high energy prices. This bill contains several very costly provisions that are more of a giveaway to energy companies than a guarantee of new energy for the American people. One of the most concerning of these are new provisions that provide risk insurance for the construction of six new nuclear power plants. Now, I agree that siting an energy project is a risky and time- consuming investment. But this provision, in my view, goes too far. This provision would allow the Secretary of Energy to enter into a contract with private interests for the construction of six advanced nuclear reactors. Further, it authorizes the payment of costs to those private interests for delays in the full operation of these facilities. The payments are up to 100 percent of the delay costs, or a total of $500 million each for the first two facilities. The next four plants would get a payment of up to 50 percent of the delay costs, up to a total of $250 million for each facility. This is a total of $2 billion. The ``delays'' for which private interests can be compensated include the inability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to comply with schedules that it sets for the reviews and inspections of these facilities. If the NRC finishes its work on time, but the full operation of one of these facilities is delayed by parties exercising their democratic right to seek judicial review to ensure the safe operation of a nuclear facility in their community, the plant owners can be compensated while the case is litigated. Nuclear powerplants are large capital investments and risky investments. But so are other energy projects. Just ask anyone who drills for oil, sites a windmill, or seeks to deploy a new energy technology. We do not provide any other type of energy facility this type of guarantee. And what a guarantee, while the Federal Government processes your permit, or if the Federal Government gets sued, the taxpayers will pay you, not for generating energy but for doing nothing. This is an enormous Federal spending commitment, and one we really are not likely to be able to afford. The intent really is to put pressure on the NRC to approve these new reactors and get them on line. If that is our intent, we should do so without obligating taxpayers to pay for the appropriate process to get them sited and built. I also am disappointed that the recycling tax credit provisions I authored to preserve and expand America's recycling infrastructure were stripped from the final bill. In a bill that provides $14.5 billion in tax incentives for energy production, these modest provisions would have gone a long way to encourage energy savings and job creation through investment in state-of-the-art recycling technology. In conclusion I try not to support legislation that exploits our natural resources and pollutes our environment. This bill contains too many provisions that represent real departure from current environmental law and practice to garner my support. Other Senators who believe that we can obtain energy security for America while preserving our environment should vote no as well. I ask unanimous consent that some additional materials clarifying my views on several bill provisions in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, exactly 1 month ago I praised the Appropriations Committee's efforts to fund the State Revolving Fund for Wastewater Treatment and for Drinking Water at the highest possible levels. Today, however, I am gravely concerned about the overall cut in environmental spending contained in the bill before us today and specifically with a large cut in the clean water program. First, let me say that I intend to vote for this conference report, as it contains a $1.5 billion supplemental spending package to cover a shortfall in veterans health care funding. I was highly disappointed to learn last month of the shortfall in funding for veterans health care. It was particularly outrageous that this announcement followed on the heels of assurances from the Veterans' Administration and President Bush that the additional funding we attempted to add in the emergency supplemental funding bill was not needed. Clearly, this was not the case. I am pleased that the Senate moved immediately to rectify this problem and dealt with this problem while we still had a chance. I am frustrated, however, that the funding to combat this shortfall was not attached to the more appropriate vehicle. At a time when our soldiers are returning from war and veterans are coming into the VA in record numbers, our veterans and our local VA hospitals need and deserve this funding. I only hope that we have learned our lesson from this unfortunate sequence of events and that we will do what is necessary in the future to ensure that the essential funds are provided for our veterans in a timely manner and following appropriate procedures. Our veterans deserve no less. A clean and healthy environment may be our most important legacy for our children. It saddens me to think that under the guise of fiscal responsibility, the bill before us today cuts spending at the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to levels not seen since fiscal year 2001. This bill funds the EPA at about $7.7 billion. As recently as fiscal year 2004, the EPA received $8.365 billion. This is a cut of over $600 million in just 2 years. Because of the administration's fiscal policies and priorities, which have led to record deficits, we are now going to underfund many programs that are important to the protection of public health and the environment. There are many programs I could touch on, but let me focus my remarks on the sad state of the clean water State revolving fund, CWSRF. The CWSRF offers long-term, low-interest loans to State and local governments to help them meet Federal water quality standards by fixing old, decaying sewer pipelines, building and repairing wastewater treatment plants, and controlling other sources of water pollution. The conference report before us today funds the CWSRF at about $900 million, down from almost $1.1 billion last year and over $1.3 billion in FY 2004. This huge drop in spending is occurring at a time when nearly half of America's rivers and lakes do not meet basic Clean Water Act standards. Furthermore, municipalities are currently struggling to fix old water and sewage pipes. The EPA estimates that clean water infrastructure needs nationwide will cost $390 billion over the next 15 years. The aging of the Nation's sewage treatment infrastructure has a direct effect on our waters and the people who come into contact with them. Many systems have exceeded their effective lives and are decaying because they were designed and built decades ago when urban areas were more compact and had much smaller populations. I intend to carry on this fight for increased spending on water infrastructure and other important environmental programs. I hope that we can come to our senses before it is too late. expanding the oil and gas leasing program

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, as we prepare to give the final approval to the highway bill conference report I would like to thank Chairman Inhofe and Senators Bond and Baucus and all of the Senators and staff who have helped to move this bill forward. The bill we are about to vote on is good for the Nation. This bill will save lives by making our roads safer. This bill will reduce traffic congestion by making our roads and bridges more efficient. This bill will boost local economies by creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the Nation. It may have taken us 3 long years to get here, but the impact of this bill will be felt for decades to come. This bill will affect every American in some way. This bill provides the biggest investment in our roads, highways, bridges and transit systems in our nation's history. Once again I thank Chairman Inhofe and all the members of the EPW Committee for their work. Madam President, I would like to take one brief moment to thank the staff who have worked so hard to help craft this highway bill. On my staff I would like to thank my staff director, Ken Connolly; J.C. Sandberg, Alison Taylor, Malia Somerville, Cara Cookson, Catherine Cyr Ransom, Chris Miller, Mary-Francis Repko, Geoff Brown and Jeff Munger. From Senator Baucus's staff, Kathy Ruffalo-Farnsworth; From Senator Inhofe's staff, Ruth Van Mark, Andy Wheeler and James O'Keefe; And from Senator Bond's staff, Ellen Stein. These Congressional staffers have made extraordinary personal sacrifices to move this massive legislation along for over 3 years, and I would like to express my personal gratitude for their efforts. I yield the floor. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time on this side. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, July 29, 2005, is the bicentennial of the birth of Hiram Powers, an American neoclassical sculptor whose works are admired in museums throughout this Nation and in this beautiful Capitol. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow lovers of art and students of history are gathering in Woodstock, VT, the town of Hiram Powers birth and his early years, to celebrate and rediscover his contributions to American art and sculpture. I sincerely wish I could join the Hiram Powers Celebration Committee in Woodstock this weekend. However, to enjoy Hiram Powers work, I only have to walk a few steps out of this Chamber. At the foot of the East Staircase, just outside the Senate Chamber, stands a statue of Benjamin Franklin sculpted by Hiram Powers. That statue, commissioned by President James Buchanan in 1859, was delivered to its present location in 1862. In the corresponding location in the House Wing of the Capitol stands a statue of Thomas Jefferson, completed by Hiram Powers in 1863. Also here in the Capitol, a bust of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall by Hiram Powers resides, fittingly, in the Old Supreme Court Chamber. The Smithsonian American Art Museum collection includes 70 works by Hiram Powers. The Corcoran Gallery of Art and the National Gallery of Art, both located here in Washington, also include works by Hiram Powers in their distinguished collections. In other U.S. cities-- including New York City, Boston, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee, to name a few--museums of fine arts hold Hiram Powers' works. Hiram Powers' most well-known sculpture is ``The Greek Slave,'' first completed in 1843. One rendition from 1846 sits today at the Corcoran, and a later rendition from 1873 can be found at the Smithsonian. To quote a curator of American Art at the corcoran, ``The Greek Slave,'' the first publicly exhibited, life-size American sculpture depicting a fully nude human figure, met with unprecedented popular and critical success. Arguably the most famous American sculpture ever, the Slave not only won Powers enormous international acclaim but also enhanced the overseas reputation of American art and culture.'' Hiram Powers was an outspoken abolitionist in the decades preceding the Civil War. ``The Greek Slave'', which depicts a Greek Christian woman, captured during the Greek War of Independence, awaiting her sale in the slave market, became a symbol of the savagery of slavery in the United States. Scholars note that it was the most widely viewed statue of its time thanks to its tour of Eastern and Midwestern States. Hiram Powers died in 1873, leaving behind the richest legacy of art of, perhaps, any American sculptor. I close today by thanking the Hiram Powers Celebration Committee. I wish them success during this weekend's events to remember Hiram Powers, his contributions to American art, and his Vermont heritage.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Captive Primate Safety Act of 2005''. I am joined by Senators Chafee, Lieberman and Lautenburg. Non-human primates in homes and communities pose serious risks to public health and safety. An attack in March of this year on a California man by chimpanzees who escaped their confinement is only one example of how dangerous these animals can be. A 13-year-old girl was attacked in West Virginia in May and on July 12th a 20-year-old man was attacked by two monkeys in Ohio. Not only can non-human primates cause serious injury, they can spread potentially life-threatening illnesses. Since 1975, Federal regulations have forbidden the import of monkeys and other non-human primates as pets due to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) concerns about diseases such as monkeypox, yellow fever, Marburg/Ebola disease, tuberculosis, and other diseases not yet known or recognized. Nevertheless, there is still a vigorous trade in these animals, with as many as 15,000 primates held in private hands across America according to some estimates. State laws that seek to regulate primates as pets are undermined by the interstate commerce of these animals. Federal legislation is needed to better support safety regulations of the CDC and the states. Infant primates may seem cute and cooperative, but they inevitably grow larger, stronger, and more aggressive. They may become many times stronger than humans and extremely difficult to handle. They can inflict serious harm by biting and scratching. Removing their teeth, as many pet owners do, is cruel and not a safeguard against injury. About 100 people reportedly have been injured by non-human primates over the past ten years, including 29 children. This legislation amends the Lacey Act to prohibit transporting monkeys, great apes, (including chimpanzees and orangutans), marmosets, lemurs, and other non-human primates across State lines for the pet trade, much like the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which passed unanimously in 2003, did for tigers and other big cats. The legislation is narrowly crafted to get at the heart of the dangerous problem of keeping primates as pets. It has no impact on the trade or transportation of animals for federally licensed facilities, universities or accredited wildlife sanctuaries. It will not affect zoos or research facilities. Federal licenses or registration are required for all commercial activity, such as breeders, dealers, research institutions, exhibitors, and transporters, therefore, they are exempt. The prohibitions in the Lacey Act only apply in other situations, that is, in the pet trade. This legislation is supported by more than 40 groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, Defenders of Wildlife and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and will work our partners in the House to enact the Captives Primate Safety Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Captive Primate Safety Act of 2005''. I am joined by Senators Chafee, Lieberman and Lautenburg. Non-human primates in homes and communities pose serious risks to public health and safety. An attack in March of this year on a California man by chimpanzees who escaped their confinement is only one example of how dangerous these animals can be. A 13-year-old girl was attacked in West Virginia in May and on July 12th a 20-year-old man was attacked by two monkeys in Ohio. Not only can non-human primates cause serious injury, they can spread potentially life-threatening illnesses. Since 1975, Federal regulations have forbidden the import of monkeys and other non-human primates as pets due to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) concerns about diseases such as monkeypox, yellow fever, Marburg/Ebola disease, tuberculosis, and other diseases not yet known or recognized. Nevertheless, there is still a vigorous trade in these animals, with as many as 15,000 primates held in private hands across America according to some estimates. State laws that seek to regulate primates as pets are undermined by the interstate commerce of these animals. Federal legislation is needed to better support safety regulations of the CDC and the states. Infant primates may seem cute and cooperative, but they inevitably grow larger, stronger, and more aggressive. They may become many times stronger than humans and extremely difficult to handle. They can inflict serious harm by biting and scratching. Removing their teeth, as many pet owners do, is cruel and not a safeguard against injury. About 100 people reportedly have been injured by non-human primates over the past ten years, including 29 children. This legislation amends the Lacey Act to prohibit transporting monkeys, great apes, (including chimpanzees and orangutans), marmosets, lemurs, and other non-human primates across State lines for the pet trade, much like the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which passed unanimously in 2003, did for tigers and other big cats. The legislation is narrowly crafted to get at the heart of the dangerous problem of keeping primates as pets. It has no impact on the trade or transportation of animals for federally licensed facilities, universities or accredited wildlife sanctuaries. It will not affect zoos or research facilities. Federal licenses or registration are required for all commercial activity, such as breeders, dealers, research institutions, exhibitors, and transporters, therefore, they are exempt. The prohibitions in the Lacey Act only apply in other situations, that is, in the pet trade. This legislation is supported by more than 40 groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, Defenders of Wildlife and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and will work our partners in the House to enact the Captives Primate Safety Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, tomorrow marks a milestone for the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA. July 26 is the 15th anniversary of the ADA's enactment into law. The ADA is one of the most significant initiatives to become law during my 30 years in the Congress. As a Member of the House I was an original cosponsor the first time the ADA bill was introduced in 1988. Although ADA did not pass during that Congress, action on the ADA legislation would not have to wait much longer. Under the extraordinary citizen leadership of the late Justin Dart, former Representative Tony Coehlo, Representative Steny Hoyer, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, my colleague Senator Tom Harkin, and then President George H.W. Bush, the ADA became law in 1990. Another important factor that led to the passage of the ADA was the staunch commitment of many diverse organizations. The ADA is an excellent illustration as to how bipartisanship, combined with the outstanding efforts of our Nation's citizenry, can lead to a landmark change that can positively impact people's lives for centuries to come. The ADA has literally opened doors that were closed prior to 1990, which has reaped great benefits for all of us. In 1990, the largest Vermont employment agency successfully placed 505 disabled individuals with employers. As of last year, that successful placement rate had increased almost threefold. Individual and economic empowerment is the ongoing legacy of the ADA. Although many great transformations have occurred since ADA's birth 15 years ago, there is room for improvement. The ADA needs to be protected and its spirit of inclusion and opportunity should be extended. I thank Senator Harkin for bringing the ADA birthday resolution to the full Senate. I am proud to join him in wishing the ADA a very happy birthday. Mr. President, I hope we have others come to speak who are as excited as I am.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Jonathan Epstein, a legislative fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 1042 and any votes thereupon.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to commend our colleagues and extend my appreciation to them because last night the Senate unanimously passed S. 544, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005. I do not believe it is too great an exaggeration to say that this bill will be among the most significant healthcare legislation the Senate will consider during this Congress. I say that because I believe this legislation will contribute immensely to the current efforts that are underway to save lives and reduce the tragedy of needless medical errors. This legislation starts with a simple premise. Let us set up a system that helps our health care providers learn from each other. Let us set up a system that promotes the reporting and analysis of medical errors. Let us set up a system that engenders the trust of providers and the patients they serve. The passage of this legislation represents the successful culmination of efforts, by many of our colleagues, that began with the publication of a small but significant report about medical errors. With the publication of the Institute of Medicine, IOM, study, To Err is Human in 1999, we were all reminded that Hippocrates' maxim to ``first, do no harm'' is as relevant to the practice of medicine today as it was in 400 B.C. That IOM report was among the first to galvanize national attention on the issue of patient safety when it reported that medical errors contribute to approximately 100,000 patient deaths a year. This startling and troubling statistic has been verified in subsequent studies and cited in peer reviewed articles in the leading journals of biomedical research, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. When I was Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in 1999, I undertook several hearings--5 in all--to examine this issue and discuss the recommendations of the To Err is Human report. The preponderance of testimony overwhelmingly agreed with several of the original Institute of Medicine recommendations. Perhaps the most important of these recommendations stresses that improving patient safety requires a learning environment rather than a punitive environment; voluntary data gathering systems as opposed to mandatory systems; and appropriate legal protections--including confidentiality and privilege from discovery--that allow for the review and analysis of medical error information. In response to this attention to patient safety issues, a myriad of public and private patient safety initiatives have begun. The Department of Health and Human Services has initiated several patient safety projects, including project grants funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ. The work of the Veterans' Administration in developing and implementing innovative patient safety systems--especially in the area of medication management--has drawn attention from throughout the country. In addition, the Quality Interagency Coordination Taskforce has recommended steps to improve patient safety that can be taken by each Federal agency involved in health care; and agency activities to implement these steps are ongoing. Finally, efforts are well underway to bring the advanced electronic technology of the information-age to bear on solving many of the problems associated with medical errors. Several non-governmental organizations and professional societies have also ``stepped up to the plate'' on patient safety. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, the U.S. Pharmacopoeia, the American Medical Association, medical specialty societies and other health care providers including the American Hospital Association and the American Federation of Hospitals have launched innovative efforts dedicated to improving patient safety. Consumers of healthcare and academia are involved in reducing errors in patient care as well. Examples of these include: ``The Leapfrog Group'' an initiative driven by organizations that buy health care that are working to initiate breakthrough improvements in the safety, quality and affordability of healthcare; and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, led by an original IOM panel member, Dr. Don Berwick, which has provided seminal work advancing the goals of patient safety. All of these efforts deserve our gratitude because without them deaths and injuries stemming from medical errors would continue to increase. However, many of the organizations currently collecting patient safety data have expressed the need for legal protections that will allow them to review protected information so that they may collaborate in the development and implementation of patient safety improvement strategies. The work of Lucien Leape, another member of the IOM panel and adjunct professor of health policy at Harvard University, has supported this view. Dr. Leape has argued persuasively that we, as a society, will continue to have difficulty reducing medical errors and improving patient safety because our institutions are ``still locked into a blame and punish approach to errors and a focus on individual culpability . . .'' in turn, ``the fear of malpractice litigation thus becomes a major barrier to openly discussing and reporting errors.'' To respond to these needs, I and several of our colleagues have for many years introduced legislation that would promote the open discussion of medical errors that is so needed to curb these needless deaths and injuries. Last year, this legislation passed the Senate unanimously, but unfortunately, a conference with our House colleagues never occurred. This Congress, I reintroduced S. 544, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, with the bipartisan support of Senators Gregg, Bingaman, Enzi, Frist, and Murray. Our group was soon joined in this effort by Senators Sessions, Landrieu and Collins. Early in this session, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously passed S. 544. To Chairman Enzi's great credit, he recognized the significance of this legislation early-on and, enlisting the support of Senator Kennedy, led the way to resolving differences between S. 544 and language that was being considered by our colleagues in the House of Representatives. Together, these Members worked untiringly to hone and improve this legislation, which resulted in its consideration by, and the unanimous support of, our colleagues last night. The legislation raises expectations for higher standards for continuous patient safety improvement and it encourages a new and needed culture of patient safety among health care providers and American hospitals. The bill accomplishes these goals by establishing appropriate legal protections for patient safety information voluntarily shared among patient safety organizations and providers. Our legislation reflects the belief that a culture of patient safety can flourish best in an environment where information, data, processes, and recommendations enjoy legal protection and privilege. Because it appropriately addresses an obvious need and concern, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act has enjoyed widespread endorsement by hospital, patient, doctor, and consumer advocacy organizations. This degree of support underscores the broad appeal and essential nature of this proposed legislation. In the time since the release of To Err is Human, the Congress has been unable to enact sensible legislation to reduce medical errors and increase patient safety. In that time, assuming that the IOM data are accurate, approximately one-half million more individuals have died and countless others have experienced significant injuries through medical errors. With the leadership of Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy we have met to work out differences with our colleagues in the House and it too will soon consider legislation. I am encouraged that we have reconciled disagreements that have previously stopped this legislation from moving forward and I hope the House will act favorably so that this legislation can become law. We need to apply Hippocrates' admonition to ``first, do no harm'' beyond the medical community to the legislative community. We need to pass legislation now that will help the health care community stop the needless injury caused by unintentional medical errors. Of course, we also live in a complex society--one in which medical errors that may have harmed a patient might also be the basis for litigation. It is a right under our laws to seek a remedy when harmed, and we need to preserve access to certain information for this redress of grievances. However, an unfortunate consequence of living in a litigious society is that hospitals and providers often feel that it's not in their best interests to share information openly and honestly. We know, in fact, that their attorneys and risk managers often advise them not to do so. So, in order for our system to work, it needs to balance these sometimes competing demands. I believe the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act strikes this balance. It calls for the creation of new entities we call Patient Safety Organizations that would collect voluntarily reported data in the form of patient safety workproducts. This bill provides the protections of confidentiality and privilege to that patient safety data--but this bill also sets definite limitations on what can be considered confidential and privileged. This legislation does nothing to reduce or affect other Federal, State or local legal requirements pertaining to health related information. Nor does this bill alter any existing rights or remedies available to injured patients. The bottom line is that this legislation neither strengthens nor weakens the existing system of tort and liability law. Instead, the legislation before us creates a new, parallel system of information collection and analysis, designed to educate our doctors and protect patients' safety everywhere. This bill reflects difficult negotiations and many compromises over almost 5 years of consideration. Through the contributions of Members on both sides of the aisle, this legislation has been greatly strengthened since I first introduced it back in the 106th Congress. I offer my appreciation to the many contributions from several colleagues who have worked to reach an agreement on this legislation. But I believe Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy deserve special recognition in their efforts to reach a consensus and so I commend them once again. I also want to commend the work of Chairman Barton and that of the Dean of the House, Representative Dingell, for their work to address our differences. It is my true hope that they can persuade their colleagues to favorably consider this bill. When a significant bill makes its way through the many hoops of the legislative process and is destined to be signed into law, as I believe this one is, we have a custom in the Senate that we take a moment to acknowledge those whose work on that measure often has made difference between success and failure. Chainnan Enzi's staff, Katherine McGuire, Steve Northrup, and especially Andrew Patzman deserve many thanks for their contributions and for reflecting so well the leadership of the Chairman. From Senator Kennedy's office Michael Myers' commitment to this effort over the many years has often served to keep discussions going and David Bowen has once again demonstrated his ability to find common ground on difficult issues. Vince Ventimiglia and Peggy Binzer of Senator Gregg's office deserve special acknowledgement, not only for ``advancing the ball'' throughout the last Congress, but also for the legal expertise and insights they brought to the process. The majority leader has been a partner in this effort from the very beginning and Dean Rosen and Liz Hall have contributed both their subject expertise and their legislative navigational skills. Bruce Lesley of Senator Bingaman's office and Anne Grady with Senator Murray led the way with improvements to the bill that helped start its way down the bipartisan path to success. Finally, I want to commend Sean Donohue, of my staff, for his contributions to the bill and also to his tenacious commitment over several years to get this legislation enacted. We legislate on many issues in the Congress, but it is not often we can say that what we do makes a difference as a matter of life and death. Patient safety, however, is one of those issues. When this legislation is signed into law, everyone that has worked to improve it can know that, in this instance, they have made that difference.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Kid Safe Chemicals Act with Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, Kerry, Corzine, Clinton and Kennedy. The purpose of the bill is simple--improve children's health by reducing exposure to harmful toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products. Synthetic chemicals play an integral role in the US economy and in enhancing our quality of life. Yet--like most Americans--I assumed basic safeguards were in place to ensure that chemicals widely used in household products were first determined to be safe. Sadly, this assumption is false. A new report, issued today by the Government Accountability Office, shows that most chemicals used in consumer products today have never undergone any Federal safety review. Further, the report demonstrates that EPA lacks the necessary legal tools to protect our children from harmful chemicals. The report, which I requested along with Senators Lautenberg and Leahy, is titled ``Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage its Chemical Review Program.'' To all people who care about our children's health, GAO's conclusions should be a call to action. Three findings merit particular attention. First, GAO found that ``EPA does not routinely assess the human health and environmental risks of existing chemicals and faces challenges obtaining the information necessary to do so.'' For example, the Agency has required testing for fewer than 200 of the 62,000 chemicals used in commerce since EPA began reviewing chemicals in 1979. Additionally, GAO found that ``EPA's reviews of new chemicals provide limited assurance that health and environmental risks are identified before the chemicals enter commerce.'' According to the report, chemical companies generally do not test new chemicals for toxicity or gauge human exposure levels before they are submitted for EPA review, forcing the Agency to rely on predictive modeling that ``does not ensure that the chemicals' risks are fully assessed before they enter commerce.'' Finally, even when EPA has toxicity and exposure information on chemicals showing significant health risks, GAO found that the Agency has difficulty overcoming the legal hurdles needed to take action. As a result, in almost three decades, EPA has issued regulations to ban or limit the production or restrict the use of only five chemicals. Our toxic ignorance would be less alarming if it wasn't coupled with overwhelming evidence of widespread human exposure. Study after study-- including those by the Centers for Disease Control--have found a cocktail of synthetic chemicals in the blood and tissue of most people tested. For example, bio-monitoring studies have found Bisphenyl A, a chemical used in plastic baby pacifiers, water bottles, and food and beverage containers, in 95 percent of people tested. Similarly, chemicals such as P-FOA, which is used in non-stick Teflon pans, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers, used as flame retardants, are regularly found in breast milk and fetal liver tissue. To be clear, the health effects of these chemicals are unknown. Unknown because no one is required to look. We do know, however, that most of us are carrying in our bodies dozens--if not hundreds--of synthetic chemicals to which our grandparents were never exposed. We also know that the incidence of certain cancers and neurological and developmental disorders linked to chemical exposure are on the rise. The Kid Safe Chemical Act would fundamentally overhaul the nation's chemical management framework. First, it would protect kids by requiring chemical manufacturers to perform basic testing of their products. Second, it would reduce our toxic ignorance by providing much needed hazard and exposure information to EPA and the public. Third, using a science based, worst-first priority system, EPA would be required to determine the safety of 300 chemicals within the next five years. By 2020, all chemicals distributed in commerce would need to meet the safety standard. To avoid imposing an undue burden on industry, the Kid Safe Chemicals Act relies on essentially the same safety standard as the Food Quality Protection Act, which passed the Gingrich-Lott Congress unanimously and which chemical manufacturers themselves have complied with for the past decade. In short, chemical manufacturers would need to establish to EPA that there was ``a reasonable certainty of no harm'' before distributing their chemicals in commerce. A ten-fold safety factor would be built in to account for the unique sensitivity of children. Finally, the Kid Safe Chemicals Act encourages innovation of less toxic chemicals by removing existing disincentives and initiating a safer alternatives and green chemistry program. As a result, the bill has been endorsed by a wide array of public health groups, such as the Breast Cancer Fund, the Center for Children's Environmental Health, and the American Public Health Association. I believe that the Kid Safe Chemicals Act represents a rational, common sense approach to reducing children's exposure to toxic chemicals.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, throughout my 30 years in the Congress, I have considered myself a free-trader. I believe that breaking down barriers to trade and opening access to markets in a fair and balanced way in the long run benefits all economies, both consumers and producers. As the distance between economies shrinks, integration of economies in a positive way is increasingly important. The implementation of free-trade agreements to codify the rules of fair play and bind all parties to strong and enforceable labor and environmental protection standards are important steps in the development of a more broadly beneficial and less biased world trading system. In the case of our nearest neighbors, trade agreements take on a security component as well. I believe a strong trade agreement can help break the cycles of poverty, deprivation and marginalization currently operating in many of the Central American countries. We know the economic status quo is unjust and dangerous. Many people in the region feel they have little hope of earning a good living or providing a good education for their children. That must change. It is in the United States' economic and security interest that positive change occurs. Throughout the Dominican Republic--Central America--U.S. Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, negotiation process, I joined a number of my colleagues on the Finance Committee in urging President Bush and the U.S. Trade Representative to address concerns about the labor and environment standards and enforcement mechanisms in this agreement. I indicated my deep concern that historically, in most of these countries, economic benefits are not shared by all strata of society. When negotiating trade agreements between economies of such unequal scale, these concerns are of particular importance. I am disappointed the administration did not do more to advance these causes in this agreement. Some progress was made, but more could have been accomplished if our recommendations had been adopted in full. I have heard from a great many points of view as this agreement has firmed up and the implementing legislation came before Congress. I have heard from many Vermonters who are opposed to increased trade in general and this agreement in particular. On the other hand, Vermont dairy farmers have come to me in support of CAFTA. Dairy industry experts predict that the ratification of this agreement will increase the sales of American dairy products to Central America by $100 million over the next several years--not a huge amount, but a significant one, given the economics of our dairy industry. As an important dairy State offering a number of high-quality cheeses and specialty products, Vermont stands to gain from this agreement. The agreement will create opportunities for other Vermont exporters as well, particularly small, niche businesses for which Vermont is famous. As with dairy sales, I don't expect these opportunities will be voluminous, but every bit helps in a global economy. I have heard very diverse viewpoints from the Central American countries as well. The region's historic inability to spread economic gains to all sectors of society is of deep concern to many in the region, and I share this concern. For two decades, I have been involved in the struggle to end human rights violations and labor rights abuses in many of these countries. While CAFTA extracts important promises from Central American Governments to abide by international standards of human rights and labor rights, my experience leaves me very skeptical of these commitments. Furthermore, the economic deprivation of much of the region frustrates all but the most committed efforts at reform. Current trends are leading to greater disparity between the rich and the poor, urban areas versus rural areas, and economically connected versus economically marginalized populations. These trends must be reversed--not just for the health of the region, but also for our own economic health and national security. The key question is whether CAFTA will exacerbate these trends, or whether it can help reverse them. Many in the region fear the United States will move in to benefit from markets in the region while frustrating Central American efforts to access U.S. markets. I have also heard from Central Americans who believe the reduction of tariffs and the standardization of commerce will greatly enhance their ability to sell to the U.S. market, thereby benefiting communities, often marginal ones, in Central America. After hearing diverse points of view, I concluded that without significant support from the United States to assist in the enforcement of labor agreements and development of greater capacity for balanced economic growth, I could not support CAFTA. Over the past few weeks, I have joined several of my colleagues in pushing the administration to commit to greater support for foreign assistance to the region, aimed specifically at the most vulnerable sectors of Central American society and the need for a strong international presence to monitor labor rights compliance. While we requested greater levels of aid, our negotiations produced a commitment from the White House to budget for and support $40 million in labor and environment capacity building assistance for the next 4 years. Additionally the administration has agreed to increase funding to the International Labor Organization, ILO, by $3 million annually for on the ground monitoring of each country's labor rights commitments and actual labor practices. This could potentially produce the first significant step forward in broad enforcement of labor standards throughout the region. In response to our concerns, the administration has also agreed to provide, through the Inter-American Development Bank, $30 million annually to El Salvador, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, $10 million to each country, for rural development and institution building for a period of 5 years. This commitment of $150 million for rural development assistance to the region is very significant. We have asked that these funds be targeted most directly to the poorer sectors of these economies, particularly those most likely to suffer adverse effects from CAFTA. The administration had previously announced agreements to provide Honduras and Nicaragua with U.S. foreign assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC, at $215 million and $175 million, respectively. In the course of recent discussions, the administration has agreed to give higher priority to the development of MCC compacts with El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic as well. While I still have concerns about CAFTA's effect upon Central America, I believe the commitments we have received from the Bush administration on foreign aid, labor rights and the environment represent a significant step forward in the ability of the region to reverse current trends and improve regional standards of living. I am hopeful these steps will lead to the improvement of the region's vital institutions and help ensure that the benefits of the agreement will trickle down to all members of society. The proof will be in the implementation, which I plan to follow very closely. However, I am heartened that we now have more to work with, and we are assured of greater support from the administration for this process. Based on the strength of these assurances, I will support the CAFTA agreement.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to spend a moment talking about the funding of critical programs under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. While I am pleased with the Appropriations Committee's efforts to fund the State Revolving Fund for Wastewater Treatment and for Drinking Water at the highest possible levels, I am gravely concerned about the overall cut in environmental spending contained in the bill before us today. A clean and healthy environment may be our most important legacy for our children. It saddens me to think that under the guise of fiscal responsibility, the bill before us today cuts spending at the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to levels not seen since fiscal year 2001. This bill funds the EPA at $7.88 billion. As recently as fiscal year 2004, the EPA received $8.365 billion. This is a cut of almost $500 million in just 2 years. Because of the administration's fiscal policies and priorities, which have led to record deficits, we are now going to underfund many programs that are important to the protection of public health and the environment. While I appreciate the dire straits that the Interior Subcommittee members found themselves in, particularly relative to other subcommittee's allocations, I am very concerned with some of the proposed cuts. In addition, I am very concerned that these levels will drop further in conference with the House, which is significantly more hostile to such programs under its current leadership. I want to highlight a few of the funding reductions in air protection programs that I am concerned about and hope will be increased in conference. The bill includes a reduction for the Clean Air Allowance Trading program. This reduction will impede the implementation of the administration's recently and much-touted clean air interstate rule. The bill recommends a large reduction in EPA's Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program. Such a cut from the budget request appears designed to harm the Agency's ability to proceed on a number of fronts that would otherwise produce cleaner vehicles and air sooner. Specifically, the cuts will make it harder for EPA to propose and finalize, as promised in regulation and, in some cases, directed by Congress, a rule on mobile source air toxics, on locomotive and marine diesel engine emissions performance, and on small engine emissions standards. This bill would cut by 10 percent EPA's research on national air quality standards. Such a cut goes against continuing scientific revelations about the significant harm that air pollution at all levels causes to public health. In addition, this cut could further delay the already late implementation rules for PM-2.5 and the second phase on the ozone standard. At a time when EPA should be focusing heavily on revisions to the PM-2.5 and ozone standards, and the necessary scientific research to support those reviews, as well as providing critical advice to the States and local governments on the most effective methods of control and monitoring, these reductions cause me great concern. The bill would reduce the budget request for Federal Support for Air Quality Management by $22.7 million. This will cut back on plans for the national clean diesel initiative and substantially delay the EPA's efforts to improve the reliability and availability of Air Quality Index forecasts around the Nation. As Senators may know, this is a particularly important tool for the growing population of asthmatic children. Parents need to know ahead of time if the day will be code red, orange or otherwise dangerous to vulnerable populations. Related cuts in the Clean Schoolbus program request also need to be restored. Finally, while I appreciate that this bill rejects the administration's proposed cuts in the domestic stratospheric ozone program, we seem to be headed again toward underfunding our commitment to the Montreal Protocol. This international treaty has been a resounding success in helping to protect the ozone layer from CFCs. I do not know of a good reason for the United States not to contribute its ratified share of the costs of phasing out ozone depleting substances and developing alternatives on a global basis. This bill would cut spending at the EPA by $144 million from last year's level, and this does not take into account inflation or the mandatory cost of pay increases. I will vote for this bill in the hopes that it will become better in conference, and with the recognition that the appropriators have done a good job with limited resources.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kyl amendment No. 1050. This amendment seeks to change the distribution formula for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund which sends money to the states for water infrastructure projects. The Clean Water Act is within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member. We are aware of the issues raised by Senator Kyl in this amendment--the distribution formula is outdated. It was adopted in 1987 and has not changed. Arizona receives a very small percentage of the total through this formula. However, an appropriations bill is not the right place for this change in authorizing legislation. A change of this magnitude needs to be worked through the authorizing committee. There are serious consequences to this type of action. For example, under the Kyl formula, the State of Ohio loses 30 percent of its current allocation. Tennessee would lose 32 percent. Michigan would lose 57 percent. Massachusetts would lose 38 percent of its current allocation. In the last two Congresses, the EPW Committee has acted to update the formula and increase funding levels for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This Congress, we are again planning to move this legislation through the committee in just a few weeks. I cannot support an amendment making a change of this significance on an appropriations bill. There are also some problems with the language in the Kyl amendment. It calls for States to receive at least 1 percent of the total if their need is less than 1 percent and it simultaneously calls for all other States to receive their need. This is simply impossible to do. With a finite pot of money, in order to establish a 1 percent floor, it is necessary to take some funds away from nonfloor States. The Kyl amendment fails to include this step in the process. In addition, the Kyl amendment includes a provision dealing with unallocated balances. Again, there are no unallocated balances in a formula that distributes 100 percent of the available money. The Senate should not act on an authorizing change of this magnitude on an appropriations bill. The Environment and Public Works Committee is on the verge of marking up legislation dealing with this exact issue. In addition, there are technical problems with the Kyl amendment that would make it impossible to implement. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Kyl amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2005 with my colleague Senator Sarbanes. We are joined by our colleagues, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Waxman, and others, who will be introducing the House companion bill today. Today, we introduce this bill for the second time. Last year, we shared the shock felt by DC residents when it was first reported that lead levels in the DC public water system were significantly higher than Federal guidelines, and had been so for at least 2 years. We sought answers to the same questions everyone was asking themselves--How much water did I drink? How much water did my children drink? What are the effects of lead in our bloodstream? We shared the outrage felt by many DC residents, asking ourselves-- why were we not told about this sooner? How did this happen? What are we going to do about it? In the 108th Congress, we attempted to answer those questions. We held a hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and listened to the concerns of DC parents worried about their children's health. We listened to experts who identified weaknesses in the Safe Drinking Water Act and the lead and copper rule, governing how the public is informed when lead is present in a drinking water system and what corrective actions public water systems must take. One of the most disturbing points is that many of the things that happened in Washington, DC, were within the boundaries of the existing rules that purport to protect the public from lead in drinking water. We responded by introducing the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004, which sought to correct the weaknesses in those rules. Today, we are reintroducing the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2005. Our bill will overhaul the Safe Drinking Water Act to strengthen the Federal rules governing lead testing and regulations in our public water systems to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--infants, children, pregnant women, and new moms--are not harmed by lead in drinking water. Specifically, the bill requires the EPA to reevaluate the current regulatory structure to figure out if it really provides the level of public health protection required. The bill calls on the EPA to establish a maximum contaminant level for lead at the tap, and if that is not practical given the presence of lead inside home plumbing systems, the bill requires EPA to reevaluate the current action level for lead to ensure that vulnerable populations such as infants, children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers receive adequate protection. I look forward to working with EPA on this evaluation to determine which approach is most feasible and which provides the greatest level of public health protection. EPA has three choices: keep current standard, an ``action level'' at 15 parts per billion; lower the current action level below 15 parts per billion; establish a ``maximum contaminant load.'' For example, it is clear that a maximum contaminant level, which is measured at the water treatment plant, would do little to protect people from lead-contaminated drinking water at their faucets. Our bill requires that standards be measured at the tap. A low lead action level measured at the tap could provide more protection than a high MCL measured anywhere in the system if there were extremely strong and effective public notification procedures in place. Public notice is the key to success of any lead regulation--parents say to me, ``If only I had known, I could have protected my family.'' It is our job to be sure the public notice system we have in place gets people the information they need when they need it. The bill will require information such as the number of homes tested, the lead levels found, the areas of the community in which they were located, and the disproportionate adverse health effects of lead on infants, be made public immediately upon detection of lead. In addition, the bill requires that, as part of routine testing conducted, any residents whose homes test high for lead receive notification and appropriate medical referrals within 14 days. Finally, we don't want the day of an exceedance to be the first time people have heard about lead in drinking water. The bill establishes a basic public education program to ensure that people have a basic understanding that lead may be present in drinking water and what the corrective actions might be even before their water system detects a problem. The bill requires increased water testing and lead remediation in schools and day-care centers nationwide. This provision exists in law today, but it was affected by previous litigation. This bill corrects the problem by requiring the Administrator to execute this program if states choose not to. It is wholly unacceptable to do anything less than provide a learning environment for our next generation that does not degrade their intellectual capacity. Our bill provides $150 million over 5 years for this program. And we strengthen existing requirements to ensure that all lead service lines will be replaced by a public water system at a rate of 10 percent per year until they are gone. This is common sense--let us get rid of the lead in our systems and get rid of the lead in our water. Our bill makes water systems responsible for replacing lead service lines, including the privately owned sections, once a system exceeds lead standards. Homeowners have the final say in whether their line is replaced. We provide $1 billion over 5 years for lead service line replacement. The EPA estimates that our Nation needs $265 billion to maintain and improve its drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years. If we do not address this, we will be facing more and more health and environmental issues as our Nation's water infrastructure degrades. Lead service lines are only one part of the picture. Leaded solder was banned in 1987. However, ``lead-free'' plumbing fixtures are currently allowed to have 8 percent lead. Our bill makes ``lead-free'' mean lead-free. It defines the term as trace amounts of lead -0.2 percent. It prohibits the use of pipes, or pipe or plumbing fitting or fixtures that are ``high lead'' which our bill defines as 2.0 percent lead within 1 year. And within 5 years, it prohibits the use of any plumbing components with anymore than 0.2 percent lead. This is a huge step toward making our water systems truly lead-free. Our bill strengthens existing requirements for leaching by requiring independent third-party performance certification. Finally, our bill requires that the existing requirements for leaching be revised to be as protective as the existing leaching standards in California which have set the bar for plumbing fittings and fixtures. We urge our colleagues to support this legislation. Last year, Good Housekeeping independently ran a piece about the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act and gave its readers information to contact us with their support. We received over a thousand responses from individual readers in 48 States and the District of Columbia. In the 18th century, almost 300 years ago, Ben Franklin concluded that lead was poisonous. In a biography written by Edmund S. Morgan, this story is recounted: At the request of his friend and English publisher Benjamin Vaughan, he wrote out a proof of what he had once casually mentioned in conversation: his conclusion that lead was poisonous. After detailing his own and other printers' ailments from the continuous handling of lead type, he went on to describe his observations of the grass and plants that died from the fumes near furnaces where lead was smelted, of the effects of drinking rainwater that sluiced off lead roofs, and of his queries to sickened plumbers, painters, and glaziers in a Paris hospital. His observations of the toxic effects of lead, he noted, were nothing new; and he remarked wryly, ``how long a useful Truth may be known, and exist, before it is generally receiv'd and practis'd on.'' We have known lead is a poison for centuries. What are we waiting for? As we learned from the incidents in Washington, DC, and Boston, there are large deficiencies in Federal safe drinking water regulations. It is time to plug the holes in these regulations and fully protect the public from this poison. It is time to get the lead out. Safe drinking water is not a privilege; it is a right--whether you live in Washington, DC, or Washington State or Washington County, VT. I urge my colleagues to join us in working to pass the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2005 to get the lead out of our pipes, out of our water, out of our families, and out of our lives.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2005 with my colleague Senator Sarbanes. We are joined by our colleagues, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Waxman, and others, who will be introducing the House companion bill today. Today, we introduce this bill for the second time. Last year, we shared the shock felt by DC residents when it was first reported that lead levels in the DC public water system were significantly higher than Federal guidelines, and had been so for at least 2 years. We sought answers to the same questions everyone was asking themselves--How much water did I drink? How much water did my children drink? What are the effects of lead in our bloodstream? We shared the outrage felt by many DC residents, asking ourselves-- why were we not told about this sooner? How did this happen? What are we going to do about it? In the 108th Congress, we attempted to answer those questions. We held a hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and listened to the concerns of DC parents worried about their children's health. We listened to experts who identified weaknesses in the Safe Drinking Water Act and the lead and copper rule, governing how the public is informed when lead is present in a drinking water system and what corrective actions public water systems must take. One of the most disturbing points is that many of the things that happened in Washington, DC, were within the boundaries of the existing rules that purport to protect the public from lead in drinking water. We responded by introducing the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004, which sought to correct the weaknesses in those rules. Today, we are reintroducing the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2005. Our bill will overhaul the Safe Drinking Water Act to strengthen the Federal rules governing lead testing and regulations in our public water systems to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--infants, children, pregnant women, and new moms--are not harmed by lead in drinking water. Specifically, the bill requires the EPA to reevaluate the current regulatory structure to figure out if it really provides the level of public health protection required. The bill calls on the EPA to establish a maximum contaminant level for lead at the tap, and if that is not practical given the presence of lead inside home plumbing systems, the bill requires EPA to reevaluate the current action level for lead to ensure that vulnerable populations such as infants, children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers receive adequate protection. I look forward to working with EPA on this evaluation to determine which approach is most feasible and which provides the greatest level of public health protection. EPA has three choices: keep current standard, an ``action level'' at 15 parts per billion; lower the current action level below 15 parts per billion; establish a ``maximum contaminant load.'' For example, it is clear that a maximum contaminant level, which is measured at the water treatment plant, would do little to protect people from lead-contaminated drinking water at their faucets. Our bill requires that standards be measured at the tap. A low lead action level measured at the tap could provide more protection than a high MCL measured anywhere in the system if there were extremely strong and effective public notification procedures in place. Public notice is the key to success of any lead regulation--parents say to me, ``If only I had known, I could have protected my family.'' It is our job to be sure the public notice system we have in place gets people the information they need when they need it. The bill will require information such as the number of homes tested, the lead levels found, the areas of the community in which they were located, and the disproportionate adverse health effects of lead on infants, be made public immediately upon detection of lead. In addition, the bill requires that, as part of routine testing conducted, any residents whose homes test high for lead receive notification and appropriate medical referrals within 14 days. Finally, we don't want the day of an exceedance to be the first time people have heard about lead in drinking water. The bill establishes a basic public education program to ensure that people have a basic understanding that lead may be present in drinking water and what the corrective actions might be even before their water system detects a problem. The bill requires increased water testing and lead remediation in schools and day-care centers nationwide. This provision exists in law today, but it was affected by previous litigation. This bill corrects the problem by requiring the Administrator to execute this program if states choose not to. It is wholly unacceptable to do anything less than provide a learning environment for our next generation that does not degrade their intellectual capacity. Our bill provides $150 million over 5 years for this program. And we strengthen existing requirements to ensure that all lead service lines will be replaced by a public water system at a rate of 10 percent per year until they are gone. This is common sense--let us get rid of the lead in our systems and get rid of the lead in our water. Our bill makes water systems responsible for replacing lead service lines, including the privately owned sections, once a system exceeds lead standards. Homeowners have the final say in whether their line is replaced. We provide $1 billion over 5 years for lead service line replacement. The EPA estimates that our Nation needs $265 billion to maintain and improve its drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years. If we do not address this, we will be facing more and more health and environmental issues as our Nation's water infrastructure degrades. Lead service lines are only one part of the picture. Leaded solder was banned in 1987. However, ``lead-free'' plumbing fixtures are currently allowed to have 8 percent lead. Our bill makes ``lead-free'' mean lead-free. It defines the term as trace amounts of lead -0.2 percent. It prohibits the use of pipes, or pipe or plumbing fitting or fixtures that are ``high lead'' which our bill defines as 2.0 percent lead within 1 year. And within 5 years, it prohibits the use of any plumbing components with anymore than 0.2 percent lead. This is a huge step toward making our water systems truly lead-free. Our bill strengthens existing requirements for leaching by requiring independent third-party performance certification. Finally, our bill requires that the existing requirements for leaching be revised to be as protective as the existing leaching standards in California which have set the bar for plumbing fittings and fixtures. We urge our colleagues to support this legislation. Last year, Good Housekeeping independently ran a piece about the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act and gave its readers information to contact us with their support. We received over a thousand responses from individual readers in 48 States and the District of Columbia. In the 18th century, almost 300 years ago, Ben Franklin concluded that lead was poisonous. In a biography written by Edmund S. Morgan, this story is recounted: At the request of his friend and English publisher Benjamin Vaughan, he wrote out a proof of what he had once casually mentioned in conversation: his conclusion that lead was poisonous. After detailing his own and other printers' ailments from the continuous handling of lead type, he went on to describe his observations of the grass and plants that died from the fumes near furnaces where lead was smelted, of the effects of drinking rainwater that sluiced off lead roofs, and of his queries to sickened plumbers, painters, and glaziers in a Paris hospital. His observations of the toxic effects of lead, he noted, were nothing new; and he remarked wryly, ``how long a useful Truth may be known, and exist, before it is generally receiv'd and practis'd on.'' We have known lead is a poison for centuries. What are we waiting for? As we learned from the incidents in Washington, DC, and Boston, there are large deficiencies in Federal safe drinking water regulations. It is time to plug the holes in these regulations and fully protect the public from this poison. It is time to get the lead out. Safe drinking water is not a privilege; it is a right--whether you live in Washington, DC, or Washington State or Washington County, VT. I urge my colleagues to join us in working to pass the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2005 to get the lead out of our pipes, out of our water, out of our families, and out of our lives.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 6, as amended by the Senate, the Energy bill. I want to explain in detail my reasons for supporting this legislation and highlight my serious concerns regarding the House-passed version of H.R. 6. I strongly oppose many of the provisions in the House-passed bill, and the Senate conferees should hold strongly to the Senate-version of this bill and reject the House legislation. Energy policy is an important issue for America and one my Vermont constituents take very seriously. The bill before us seeks to address important issues, such as the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the tradeoffs between the need for energy and the need to protect the quality of our environment, and the need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the importance of energy policy, this bill is a very serious matter. I do not take a decision to support such a bill lightly. Although this bill is not exactly as I would have written it, it begins to move this Nation toward a more balanced approach to our energy needs. During floor debate, the Senate modified the renewable fuels standard contained in the Energy Committee reported bill to more closely resemble legislation reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, S. 606. Specifically, the bill would repeal the Clean Air Act requirement for oxygenated gasoline, and phase out the use of the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, in 4 years. It would require refiners to use biofuels, presumably mostly ethanol, in volumes of 8 billion gallons by 2012. This is a much more aggressive goal than the 108th Congress Senate-passed bill that I supported, which included a 5 billion gallon by 2012 mandate. It is my hope that such a significant commitment will begin to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. I would like to share the history of the renewable fuels provisions included in this bill we are adopting today. I've long supported a more aggressive approach to replacing petroleum-based motor fuels with fuels made from domestic resources, including ethanol produced by farmers growing grains and fibers. I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman on their leadership on this important matter. Back in 1991, I introduced S. 716, the Replacement Fuels Act, to require gasoline refiners to replace increasing percentages of their product with domestically produced, nonpetroleum liquids. Many of us knew then that it was technologically possible, and now it seems that a majority has crossed that threshold of understanding. When I first introduced my Replacement Fuels Act, many did not take it seriously. The oil industry certainly did not. But I made the rounds with several of my colleagues to convince them of the benefits of such a program, including the national security benefits of weaning ourselves from our dependency on foreign oil. At the time, I argued that the costs to our military, in terms of personnel and dollars, of protecting the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf, and of attempting to quell the political unrest of the Middle East, were staggering then and only apt to grow larger. I recall meeting with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, now the chairman of the Energy Committee, in his office to discuss my bill. We agreed on the domestic benefits of moving in this direction--for our farmers; for our environment; for our national and domestic security. After considerable discussion, Senator Domenici agreed to cosponsor my bill. I made the rounds to other members of the Energy Committee for their advice and support. Many of those committee members who cosponsored my bill are still here today--Senators Bingaman, Burns, Craig and Conrad, Shelby and Akaka. Four other committee members, since retired, also were cosponsors, making a majority of the committee and ensuring committee approval. Other Members who cosponsored my bill and who are here today include Senators Grassley, Reid, and Warner. In the end, the bulk of the language of my Replacement Fuels Act was included as title V of Public Law 102-486 the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Before final passage of that act, however, in every instance that ``shall'' appeared in my bill, it was changed to ``may'' in the final law. In other words, it changed from a mandate to an option, and we've only made modest gains in the past dozen years, when we could have made bold progress. So, again, I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman for their leadership to move us more aggressively toward domestic production of transportation fuels and away from our growing foreign dependence. I urge Senators and the public to take note of the Sense of the Senate on climate change successfully included in the bill due to the efforts of Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Specter, and many others. It says that Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that, one, will not significantly harm the United States economy; and, two, will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions. Such a program regarding air pollution and environmental policy is clearly in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am strongly committed to holding hearings and reporting implementing and bipartisan legislation from that committee, on which I serve as the ranking member, as soon as possible. During debate on the renewable fuels provisions, I agreed to modify the absolute deadline for EPA's long-awaited and long-delayed mobile source air toxics, MSAT, rule from July 2005 in Domenici amendment No. 779 to July 2007. EPA is widely expected to promulgate a final rule well before that later date, but this provision provides additional certainty and protection. In addition, the provision as amended and included by Senator Inhofe in the last manager's package, will allow EPA to regulate more stringently than the 2001-2002 toxics emissions reductions baseline in the final MSAT rule. That more stringent rule will take the place of the baseline so long as it will achieve and maintain greater overall reductions in emissions of air toxics. Such reductions must occur in the same timeframe and result in overall reductions of each and every one of the air toxics emitted in the combustion of gasoline, when compared to the 2001-2002 baseline. This provision should not be construed to permit EPA to count reductions of less toxic pollutants like aldehydes equal in effect or equivalent to reductions of more toxic pollutants like benzene. The intent of this provision is not to allow EPA to avoid toxics potency weighting or sensible risk analysis and exposure assessment in determining the meaning of ``overall reductions.'' This provision should also not be viewed as a vehicle for changes to the liability system for fuel additives. The Senate has spoken very strongly on this point, and the conferees should be aware that any new MTBE language addressing the issue of retroactive liability is likely to jeopardize passage of the conference report in the Senate. I am also pleased that the Senate included a 10-percent renewable portfolio standard in this bill. I have worked for more than 20 years to boost the percentage of renewable sources used to generate our Nation's electricity. While I believe we could be taking a much more aggressive step, we need to take a serious first step, and the provisions in this bill do just that. Though I understand that the House has concerns with adding an RPS, it is my hope that the conferees will acknowledge that, for many States, renewable energy can and should be a bigger energy source. I am pleased that the Senate has also chosen to promote renewable energy by accepting three amendments I offered to the bill during floor debate. It is my hope these modest provisions will be retained in conference. My first amendment will make significant reductions in energy use in the Capitol complex by requiring the Architect of the Capitol to review the possibility for energy savings in the Dirksen Building. The second two amendments expand the sources of grant financing available to utilities for projects involving renewables and efficiency. The Senate has agreed to add livestock methane, a promising source of energy in Vermont, as an energy source that is eligible to compete for grants under the Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Incentives Program. The Senate has also agreed to create a new $20- million-per-year grant program for upgrade of electric transmission. As I mentioned, though, the bill is not perfect, and the conferees should carefully review several provisions. In title XIII there are a number of sections authorizing investigations that will recommend changes to environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act. Unfortunately, in a number of these areas the Environmental Protection Agency, whose responsibility it is to ensure the air we breath and the water we drink is safe, is not involved in developing or approving these recommendations. While I proposed amendments to include the Environmental Protection Agency in these sections, not all of changes were adopted. The sections needing amending include: section 1306 Backup Fuel Capability Study; section 1309 Study of Feasibility and Effects of Reducing Use of Fuel for Automobiles; and section 1320, Natural Gas Supply Shortage Report. It is my belief that any studies that involve environmental compliance should include the involvement of the agency whose mission it is to oversee the implementation of these environmental laws. I am pleased that my Recycling Investment Saves Energy, RISE, provisions were included as section 1545 of the final bill. The provisions will provide almost $100 million in tax incentives for recyclers over the next decade to preserve and expand our Nation's recycling infrastructure. The targeted 15 percent tax credit for equipment used in the processing and sorting of recyclable materials will increase quantity and quality of recyclable materials collected. This national investment is necessary to reverse the declining recycling rate of many consumer commodities, including aluminum, glass and plastic, which are near historic lows. It will also generate significant energy savings as increasing the U.S. recycling rate to 35 percent will result in annual energy savings of 903 trillion Btus, enough to meet the energy needs of an additional 2.4 million homes. The Finance title includes an amendment that I authored to improve future Federal energy investment and policy decisions. It requires the Secretary of Treasury to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to complete a study and report to Congress on the health, environmental, security and infrastructure externalities associated with energy activities and how they may or may not be affecting revenues, the economy and trade. Such information will dramatically improve our ability to review the costs and benefits of energy legislation and tax policy changes. I am pleased that my amendment to section 1305, the coal bed methane study, was adopted. My amendment requires that as it studies the issue the Department of Energy consult with States and the Environmental Protection Agency on the impacts of coal bed natural gas production on surface water and ground water resources. This consultation should occur, especially before making recommendations to Congress on changes to the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill does a reasonable job in balancing support for traditional fossil fuels and nuclear power and renewable energy, but I am perplexed by provisions in the Energy bill that provide $1.82 billion in grants for oil, gas and coal industries. With oil hovering around $60 a barrel and gasoline prices at record highs, I question the wisdom of providing additional subsidies for oil and gas exploration and production. While Americans pay more at the pump, multinational oil companies continue to report record profits. The bill also waives royalty payments for oil companies drilling in Federal waters and rewards these already profitable companies while depleting the U.S. economy of $100 million over 10 years. The bill gives $1.8 billion to the dirtiest powerplants to build new coal powerplants, thereby giving them an economic advantage over powerplants that installed pollution control technologies. I am also concerned about provisions in the coal title that unfairly benefits mining companies with current leases on federal lands by doubling the acreage, 162 to 320 acres, of coal-leased lands; removing the 40-year limitation for leases; and doubling the time (from 10 to 20 years) current leaseholders can pay advanced royalties. These provisions will have the most significant impact on the Powder River Basin where three mining companies dominate current production. I question the wisdom in subsidizing these fossil fuel industries that will only continue to encourage our Nation's dependence upon these polluting and expensive energy sources. I also urge the conferees not to include the Leaking Underground Storage Tank, LUST, reform provisions in the final bill. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is actively considering these issues and has planned a hearing for July 2005. Our Committee's actions led the Senate to enact bipartisan comprehensive LUST reform legislation last Congress by unanimous consent. Adding LUST reform onto the Energy bill would needlessly bypass our legislative consideration and prevent this issue from getting the careful attention that it requires. The LUST provisions of the Senate's Energy bill, section 210, are problematic. Most significantly, the section raids the LUST Trust Fund and diverts dollars from their intended purpose--cleaning up contamination from leaking USTs. Without increasing the amount of money to be appropriated to the States, the provision expands the eligible uses of the LUST Trust Fund to pay for cleanup of spills from non-UST sources, such as pipelines, cars, and above ground storage tanks. In a letter to Rep. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin on May 7, 2003, former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman opposed these provisions because they ``would change the historical scope of the program, and could stress the Agency's ability to adequately address releases from USTs.'' I am concerned because this section will go to conference with the House- passed LUST provisions that also contain significant flaws. The House provisions add a new periodic inspection requirement for USTs that is weaker than the 2-year minimum inspection frequency recommended by EPA and the 3-year minimum requirement recommended by the Government Accountability Office. For example, a tank last inspected in 1999 wouldn't need to be inspected again for over a decade. In addition, the House delivery prohibition provisions may preempt existing authority in 24 States. Finally, the provisions requiring secondary containment within 1,000 feet of existing community water systems includes an exemption that ignores prevention in favor of expensive cleanup. So we have our work cut out for us. Today, the Senate is passing a good bill that needs some work in conference, but not a substantial overhaul or weakening. To retain my support the conferees need to prevent substantial modifications to this bill, resist the addition of controversial items added in the House-version of H.R. 6, avoid substantive modification to core titles of the bill, limit adjustments to the bill's fiscal scope and cost, and consider additions of provisions to provide energy security. This is a good effort to develop energy legislation for America, which is a goal widely shared in both Houses of Congress. It is my hope that conferees seek this year to reach consensus on issues such as: national electricity reliability standards, the use of renewables, the phase out of methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, and production of suitable oxygenate replacements, and the fiscally responsible extension of needed energy tax provisions. With this bill I am supporting today we send them a good template to achieve that goal.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues on our efforts to pass an energy bill through the Senate that does not include exemptions for the oil and gas industry from drinking water and clean water protections. Section 327 of H.R. 6 as reported contains an exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act for the practice of hydraulic fracturing. Section 328 of H.R. 6 contains an exemption for the oil and gas industry from obtaining stormwater discharge permits under the Clean Water Act, rolling back fifteen years of environmental protection. These efforts to weaken the protections applied to our Nation's waters should be stricken from the bill as the conferees on H.R. 6 work to resolve the differences between the two bills. Over half of our Nation's fresh drinking water comes from underground sources. Hydraulic fracturing occurs when fluids are injected at high rates of speed into rock beds to fracture them and allow easier harvesting of natural oils and gases. It is these injection fluids, and their potential to contaminate underground sources of drinking water, that are of high concern. In a recent report, the EPA acknowledged that these fluids, many of them toxic and harmful to people, are pumped directly into or near underground sources of drinking water. This same report cited earlier studies that indicated that only 61 percent of these fluids are recovered after the process is complete. This leaves 39 percent of these fluids in the ground, risking contamination of our drinking water. In June of 2004, an EPA study on hydraulic fracturing identified diesel as a ``constituent of potential concern.'' Prior to this, EPA had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with three of the major hydraulic fracturing corporations, whom all voluntarily agreed to ban the use of diesel, and if necessary select replacements that will not cause hydraulic fracturing fluids to endanger underground sources of drinking water. However, all parties acknowledged that only technically feasible and cost-effective actions to provide alternatives would be sought. Litigation over the last several years has resulted in findings that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated as part of the underground injection control program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Yet, EPA indicated in a letter in December of 2004 that they have no intention of publishing regulations to that effect or ensuring that state programs adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing. I will include our letter to EPA dated October 14, 2004, and their response dated December 7, 2004, in the Record. We need to be moving in the right direction--taking steps to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is appropriately regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. I have introduced S. 1080, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005 to ensure that the practice of hydraulic fracturing is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act through the Underground Injection Control, UIC, Program. I would like to thank Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, and Lieberman for co-sponsoring that bill. The House energy bill takes steps in the wrong direction--exempting hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. I urge the conferees of this energy bill to strike section 327 of the House-passed energy bill. By striking this language, the conferees will help to ensure that the drinking water enjoyed by all Americans is not damaged through the process of hydraulic fracturing. This exemption for hydraulic fracturing is not the only step backwards that the House energy bill takes. Section 328 of the bill exempts the oil and gas industry from stormwater protections in the Clean Water Act. Stormwater runoff is a leading cause of impairment to the nearly 40 percent of surveyed U.S. water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Currently, the oil and gas industry is regulated under Phase I of EPA's stormwater regulations which requires National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permits for medium and large municipal storm sewer systems and eleven, 11, categories of industrial activity, including construction sites disturbing more than 5 acres of land. In 1999, EPA adopted the Phase II permitting requirements, effective March 10, 2003, covering small municipal separate stormwater systems and construction sites affecting one to five acres of land. However, EPA extended the Phase II permitting deadline to June 12, 2006 for only the oil and gas industry. Now, section 328 of the House energy bill completely exempts the oil and gas industry from compliance with both Phase I and Phase II of the NPDES stormwater program. This action will adversely impact water quality. Oil and gas construction activities require companies to undertake a number of earth disturbing activities, including: clearing, grading, and excavating. Oil and gas site development may also include road construction to transport equipment and other materials, as well as pipeline construction. The stormwater pollution created from these activities can be devastating to the environment. According to the EPA, over a short period of time, stormwater runoff from construction site activity can contribute more harmful pollutants, including sediment, into rivers, lakes, and streams than had been deposited over several decades. Sediment clouds water, decreases photosynthetic activity, reduces the viability of aquatic plants and animals; and ultimately destroys animals and their habitat. Sediment rates from cleared and graded construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times greater than those from agricultural lands and one-thousand to two-thousand times greater than those from forest lands. Other harmful pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction sites include phosphorous and nitrogen, pesticides, petroleum derivatives, construction chemicals, and solid wastes that may be mobilized when land surfaces are disturbed. More than 5,000 cities, towns, and counties and eleven, 11, industrial sectors are required to obtain NPDES stormwater permits. Large oil and gas construction sites covered under the Phase I stormwater program have been taking action to reduce the impact of sediments and pollutants on water quality since 1990. In 2005, GAO reported that over a one-year period, 4,330 oil and gas construction sites obtained Phase I stormwater permits in three of the six largest oil and gas producing states. In 20 the Warren County Conservation District submitted information to EPA indicating that 70 percent of the oil and gas projects they inspected between 1997 and 2002 were in violation of Phase I permit conditions. If this amendment is adopted, these actions will no longer be required. In FY 2002/2003, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation estimated that they would review 400 engineering plans as part of the stormwater permitting process. The House provision would exempt these sites from 15-year-old requirements to reduce the pollution they send into surrounding waters through stormwater discharges. The environmental impact from this amendment is even more severe when you factor in the approximately 30,000 oil and gas ``starts'' per year that EPA anticipates could be covered by the Phase II stormwater regulation. EPA is currently reviewing the impact of the regulation on these sites. Adopting this amendment would circumvent this review process and exempt thousands of sites from taking action to protect water quality. Section 402(l) of the Clean Water Act contains a limited exemption for specific types of uncontaminated discharges from specific types of oil and gas sites from stormwater permit requirements. The language of the Act and the legislative history of this section indicate that when adopted, section 402(l) was intended to give a narrow exemption for specific circumstances in the oil and gas industry that did not include construction activities at every oil and gas--related site. I urge the conference committee on H.R. 6 to reject the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act exemptions included in the House energy bill. These provisions represent a major step backward in efforts to protect water quality and could pose a direct threat to the safety of drinking water supplies. Should these exemptions be included in the final conference report, we will see our Nation's water quality standards go down the drain. I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced letters in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President. I thank Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus and the other members of the Senate Finance Committee for agreeing to my recycling amendment, which I call the Recycling Investment Saves Energy, RISE, provisions. These provisions were added to the tax title of the energy bill last week and have now been incorporated into the Energy bill as section 1545 of H.R. 6. The current Senate Energy bill contains important provisions to promote the use of energy savings in vehicles, appliances, new homes, and commercial buildings. As we move forward with fostering energy efficiency, we must not neglect recycling. Recycling should be an integral component of our nation's energy efficiency strategy. The RISE provisions will create jobs, increase productivity, and conserve energy by establishing a tax credit to preserve and expand America's recycling infrastructure. Specifically, the provisions establish a 15 percent tax credit for the purchase of qualified recycling equipment used to sort or process packaging and printed materials, such as beverage containers, cardboard boxes, glass jars, steel cans and newspapers. The tax credit could be claimed by material recovery facilities, manufacturers or other persons that purchase recycling equipment that sorts or processes residential or commercial recyclable materials, even if such equipment also is used to handle material from industrial facilities. This national investment in our recycling infrastructure is necessary to reverse the declining recycling rate of many consumer commodities, including aluminum, glass and plastic, which are near historic lows. For example, 55 billion aluminum cans were wasted by not being recycled in 2004, which represents approximately $1 billion of aluminum lost to industry. The recycling rate of paper is estimated to be roughly 50 percent, glass containers 35 percent, and PET plastic bottles less than 20 percent. The energy savings from greater recycling are significant. Increasing the recycling of containers, packaging and paper could save the equivalent energy output of 15 medium-sized power plants on an annual basis. Recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum for its virgin source. Increasing the U.S. recycling rate to 35 percent would result in annual energy savings of 903 trillion BTUs, enough to meet the annual energy needs of 8.9 million homes. Due to the diminishing quantity and quality of available recyclable materials, many companies are not able to obtain the volume of quality recycled feedstock needed to meet demand. This new economic challenge makes it even harder for recycled products to compete in the marketplace. For example, two Michigan plastic recycling facilities recently closed, affecting 100 jobs, as a result of inconsistent supply of recycled plastic. Similarly 17 percent of the recycling capacity at U.S. paper mills has been shut down, in part due to insufficient quality recyclable materials. One leading glass manufacturer also reports that they are able to obtain only a small fraction of the volume of recycled glass that their facilities can use. In some cases, recyclers have been forced to shut down their operations in the United States and relocate to other countries due in part to insufficient or poor quality recycled feedstocks. This is particularly unfortunate as, on a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables are estimated to sustain 10 times more jobs than landfilling or incineration. The RISE provisions aim to reverse the declining recycling rate and resulting energy loss by incentivizing greater collection of quality recyclable materials. The bill would expand collection efforts by making innovative technology more affordable, such as reversible vending machines that collect and process empty containers. It could also be used to finance equipment at recycling collection centers. This targeted tax credit would address quality concerns by reducing the barriers hindering investment in optical sorting and other state of the art equipment needed at material recovery facilities. By reducing material loss and improving quality, RISE will increase both the quantity and quality of recycled feedstock available to manufacturers. Reducing the barriers to recycling also serves a number of environmental goals, including lessening the need for new landfills, preventing emissions of many air and water pollutants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulating the development of green technology. But most importantly, recycling helps preserve resources of our children's future. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support these provisions. Mr. President, last night the Senate narrowly defeated the Kerry amendment No. 844, sense-of- the-Senate resolution on climate change. I was unable to be present for the vote, but I strongly supported this sense of the Senate. The United States has consistently failed to constructively engage in international discussions in a manner consistent with our obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or even under a basic good neighbor policy. The Bush administration policy on global warming is ineffective, unproductive, and irresponsible. The administration's voluntary approach and efforts to address global warming have been underfunded and will not produce real emissions reductions in the timeframe necessary. Fortunately, many of the States have taken up the mantle of leadership, since there is a tremendous vacuum in the White House. By reversing his pledge to control carbon dioxide from powerplants, walking away from the Kyoto Protocol, and now snubbing British Prime Minister Tony Blair's request for assistance from the United States on this critical climate change problem, the President is reneging on this Nation's responsibility and opportunity to be a world leader. Carbon dioxide levels have never been higher and the United States disproportionately contributes to the global warming problem. We need to reengage with the world in producing a binding global plan that reduces greenhouse gases below levels that would cause dangerous interference with the Earth's climate. The administration and the world should pay close attention to the passage of the Bingaman-Specter resolution that committed the Senate to adopting legislation containing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide. This is an important resolution and it should serve as a wakeup call to the administration and those among the carbon-intensive industries. We must shoulder our moral responsibility to reduce the risks of global warming. Mr. President, I thank the bill managers, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, for agreeing to accept my amendment in the managers' package that was agreed to last night by unanimous consent. My amendment directs the Architect of the Capitol to study the feasibility of installing energy and water conservation measures on the rooftop of the Dirksen building, specifically the roof area above the cafeteria in the center of the building. Today, all that exists is open space in the center of the building. My amendment will assist the Architect in obtaining information that will allow this space to be used in a more efficient manner and save taxpayer dollars. During debate on the energy bill, the Senate has heard numerous arguments on the importance of conserving energy. In August of 2003, nearly 50 million people in the Northeast and Midwest were affected by a massive power outage. This event emphasized the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather- related outages. Failure to maintain a reliable grid had a huge impact on our Nation's economy, businesses, and individuals' everyday lives. It is vital, then, that we here in the Senate do our part and put measures in place to make the Nation's Capitol a more secure and sustainable user of electricity. The Capitol Complex is largely dependent upon the electrical grid for power. Our daily operations should not be compromised by grid failure. My amendment moves us forward in the right direction. Technology already exists to ensure that our operating systems can continue to operate despite loss of a main power supply. By creating onsite generating capacity through the installation of cogeneration equipment at the power plant and using solar powered equipment, like photovoltaic panels, we could produce energy to operate essential systems during a blackout or significant loss of power. We can start slowly by powering emergency lighting and notification systems in hallways so the occupants know how to exit the building safely or upgrade the electrical generating capacity of the complex. Technology is only getting better. My amendment asks the Architect of the Capitol to explore the use of this new technology to ensure that the Nation's Capitol always has reliable power. In addition, this new technology also has the potential to provide significant savings in the Capitol's operating budget. We are all looking for ways to save the taxpayers money and reduce the Nation's deficit. We have the opportunity today to set an example and practice what we preach. As Members of Congress, we can educate ourselves and our staff on the benefits of energy efficiency, and see first hand the savings it can generate. The Nation's Capitol can join those already utilizing this technology and help encourage others to adopt it as well. My amendment requires a feasibility study be conducted to look at the Dirksen building rooftop, including the open space in the center of the building directly above the cafeteria. The study will focus on more efficient use of the space while providing energy and water savings to the Capitol Complex. I envision a wonderful park and garden area that Members and staff can actually use. These gardens would not only provide a beautiful environment by utilizing native plants, but they would also reduce energy use, and provide insulation for the building to reduce heat and energy loss. These gardens would also provide a collection system for rainwater to limit the amount of stormwater runoff in the area. This collected water could be utilized for basic plumbing, watering the vegetation, or even the fire sprinkler systems; thereby reducing the use of water in the Capitol Complex. Installation of technology, like photovoltaic panels, could collect the rays of the sun and provide energy to the building. These can be installed on the rooftops of our buildings in many different areas. These panels are now made to blend into any environment There is even technology that exists to funnel natural daylight into the cafeteria in the basement. Imagine enjoying natural daylight as you consume your lunch or hold that quick meeting. Preliminary studies show that exposure to daylight improves worker productivity and results in less absenteeism due to illness. The Architect of the Capitol is currently updating the master plan for the Capitol Complex. This small project fits into that plan. The Architect is making great strides to update our operating systems with newer and efficient technology with sustainable features. I appreciate his efforts and encourage him to continue doing so. Before I conclude, I would like to thank a former staffer who helped me develop this great idea, Mary Katherine Ishee. Mary Katherine was creative enough to look beyond the barren view from the committee offices on the fourth floor of the Dirksen building and realize the opportunity it presented. It is about time we bring our home, the Capitol Complex, up to date with the rest of the world. This language is a step in that direction. We have the potential to use the latest technology to save energy, address security concerns, conserve our resources, and make more efficient use of this space. We will all benefit from a wonderful, efficient, and useful park in the middle of the Dirksen building, and the taxpayers will benefit from our reduced energy and water use in the form of lower utility bills. I am very pleased that this measure has been added and I hope it will be retained by the conferees. Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman for adopting my amendment No. 774, as part of the Senate Energy bill. The amendment authorizes up to $20 million a year for 7 years for the establishment of a new Department of Energy grant program to aid local governments, municipal utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and not- for-profit agencies. The cost of repairing transmission lines is proving particularly difficult for small communities in Vermont and across America. I became interested in creating such a program due to the challenges that communities in my State are facing with respect to the upgrading and siting of transmission and distribution lines. For example, residents in Lamoille County, VT, have been struggling to find ways to expand the transmission system to accommodate the demands of a growing tourism industry without overly burdening local residents with the cost of such an upgrade. Currently, the transmission system that delivers electricity to this area of my State is at peak capacity, leaving the local community in jeopardy should a single event like a fallen power line or damage to a key piece of equipment occur. Not only must communities afford the costs of the infrastructure itself, but also the costs of integrating these new technologies into the rural landscape in a way that does not destroy their scenic quality and protects their lifestyle. These grants will help rural communities meet these needs. They can be used for increasing energy efficiency, siting or upgrading transmission lines, or providing modernizing electric generating facilities to serve rural areas. Under the generation grants portion of the program, preference will be given to renewable facilities such as wind, ocean waves, biomass, landfill gas, incremental hydropower, livestock methane, or geothermal energy. By adopting my legislation as part of this Energy bill, small electric cooperatives and local governments in Lamoille County, VT, will be eligible to apply for Federal grants to construct new facilities and transmission upgrades. This is a good amendment and it should be retained by the conferees. Mr. President, last night the Senate defeated amendment No. 961 that would have banned the siting of windmills in many areas in the lower 48 States and made them ineligible to receive Federal tax subsidies. Had I been present to vote, I would have opposed this amendment. In my 30 years in Congress, I have been a strong proponent of renewable energy sources including wind power. I am very optimistic about the role wind energy can play in satisfying a growing proportion of this Nation's energy needs. If the objective of this amendment was to protect scenic qualities of America's lands and shorelines, it did not achieve that goal. The amendment only targeted the siting of windmills within 20 miles of Federal public lands, but did not address the siting of coal-fired powerplants and other energy sources that have far greater impacts to our public lands. Just look at the impacts that air pollution blowing in from coal-fired Midwest powerplants is currently having on the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Shenandoah National Park, and the protected areas in the beautiful green mountains of Vermont. This amendment also failed to treat all public lands and wildlife refuges equally. As ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over our Nation's wildlife refuges, I was concerned that, had this amendment been approved, no wind turbine situated anywhere near Federal lands in the lower 48 States would have been eligible to receive Federal tax subsidies, thereby severely limiting the expansion of wind power in the United States. Oddly, this amendment specifically exempted some other federally protected areas such as coastal wildlife refuges in Louisiana and Alaska. By defeating this amendment by a wide margin, the Senate sends a strong message that wind power has a role to play in satisfying this Nation's energy needs.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, in my many years of public service, I have always tried to push our national Government forward on a greener, more sustainable path. That is the path that Vermont has chosen, and that is the way that seems to be most sensible to me. I have worked hard to promote recycling, efficiency, renewable energy, alternative fuels, conservation, and in general the wise and sensible use of our energy resources. I consider wasting energy a symptom of bad management and economic inefficiency. It also strikes me as an inconsiderate and irresponsible behavior that visits the sins of one generation upon the next. That is what this debate is about. What will we leave our future generations if our actions and vision are too shortsighted and wasteful? We, the United States, have wasted more energy than any other country or civilization on Earth, even as we have built the Nation into an economic and technological superpower. America's incredible growth through energy has not been cost free. We are dangerously dependent on foreign sources of petroleum. Public health has suffered and still suffers from pollution from fossil fuel combustion. But perhaps the most costly in the long run to our economy, the public health, national security, and the quality of life for generations to come is our continuously growing greenhouse gas emissions. These carbon emissions are the product of our vast inefficiency in producing and consuming energy. Right now, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are still at an alltime high. According to credible scientists, that level has not been higher at any time in the last 420,000 years. The United States can take the blame for approximately 40 percent of the total carbon loading now in the atmosphere, and we are adding more than our share every year. We have a moral responsibility to remedy that. We have a chance in this Energy bill to begin making reductions in our emissions. Congress must lead on this issue because there is a tremendous vacuum in this administration. The President and the Vice President would prefer that we stick our heads in the sand and hope that it all will go away. Voluntary measures are useless against a problem of this scale. We must use taxes or a market-based program, such as a cap-and-trade program, that will motivate American ingenuity and innovation. We must be aggressive in funding domestic and international programs to decarbonize our energy supplies. We must use trade opportunities and negotiations to export energy-efficient American products and services. We have a choice in this bill. We can defer action, letting the problem get worse and more costly with each passing year, or we can act now to reduce our wasteful global warming emissions. My colleagues should remember that generations to come will look back at the climate votes on this bill. If we do not act responsibly, they will know who to blame for the sea level rise that will threaten their communities, the extra intensity of hurricanes, the loss of glaciers, or more frequent heat waves and floods. They will know who wasted the chance to do the right thing for them in the future. The Senate must adopt strong legislation that reduces our greenhouse gas emissions. No major energy policy bill will get my support without it. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have decided to support the McCain- Lieberman amendment to H.R. 6 as an important step forward on combating global warming. However, I do so with significant reservations about the new language in this amendment providing additional Federal subsidies to the nuclear power industry. I am especially concerned about the potential amount of the loan guarantees provided, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, and the possibility that any new nuclear facilities constructed could default on those loans. If, for any reason, the stream of revenue from auctioned credits is insufficient to cover the maintenance or clean-up costs of any facilities that default on such loans, then those costs and liabilities might end up in the Federal taxpayers lap. And we all know about the hundreds of billions of dollars in costs that taxpayers face because of the problems in the Departments of Energy and Defense nuclear weapons complex. That type of exposure seems unwise at best. This language was not in S.342, the Climate Stewardship Act, which I cosponsored and support, and I advised the sponsors of the amendment not to include it in this amendment. But, unfortunately, it is here in front of the Senate and the only options are yes or no. Senators know that there is already very substantial Federal involvement in support of nuclear power, from the Price-Anderson insurance program to the civilian waste repository program. It makes very little sense to me to pile further Federal dollars on top of an already rich web of support. This is particularly true since the Finance title of this legislation provides additional subsidies for new nuclear power generation. There is at least one other reason that nuclear power does not need additional support. There is no other source of electricity that will obtain a greater advantage in a carbon constrained world than nuclear power. This kind of legislation immediately levels the competitive playing field for nuclear power and investments as compared to conventional electricity generation that is more carbon intensive. The fastest, quickest and most economically efficient way to encourage development of and investment in new zero-emission generation is to tax or cap greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Government should be a strong partner in supporting such research and investment and directing it toward the goal in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That goal is stablization of atmospheric concentrations of manmade greenhouse gases at levels that will prevent dangerous interference with the global climate system. Without such an organizing goal, our Nation's climate research plan and energy subsidies and programs are simply a loose affiliation of ineffective and misdirected efforts. Unfortunately, that is the administration's preference. They prefer not to tackle this gravely important issue with a constructive and assertive international role or with a responsible domestic focus that will reduce greenhouse gases now or anytime within the time window necessary. I applaud the Senators from Arizona and Connecticut for continuing their efforts to set and reach this goal. I encourage them to remember my comments about nuclear subsidies if and when this issue comes before the Senate again. I would also like to commend Senator Bingaman for his efforts to work on an additional bipartisan proposal inspired by the National Commission on Energy Policy.