First Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, with the Senator's permission--and I know he has the floor--I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think we are headed in the right direction. I wanted to state to my friend that Senator Dodd is offering his amendment. He is going to speak for a while. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock. We hope we will get permission then to set aside the Dodd amendment so we can consider the Dayton amendment, which is on corporate expatriation. He should not take too long.

I hope the majority will give us consideration to set aside the Dodd amendment then because, if we are going to work through all of these amendments, we are going to have to have cooperation on both sides. I have no objection to the unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to this important amendment.

I say to my friend from Connecticut, his speech said it all. In addition to the speech he gave today, he has been a vocal advocate for change for many years. He is to be complimented and applauded for his work.

I hope this amendment passes. Every amendment we have offered on this side has been very important. We have not done very well with the amendments because they have been straight party-line votes. In this instance, I hope the children Senator Dodd has talked about would be taken into consideration.

As indicated, it would be so important to the State of Nevada. It is a modest increase but it would certainly take care of a lot of problems that the school districts have in Nevada.

Again, I congratulate my friend from Connecticut and hope very much this amendment will pass.

Will the Senator yield?

It is my understanding you will offer an amendment in a different form than the Dodd amendment, and there would be two side-by- side amendments; is that right?

We are working on that. I spoke to Senator Dodd and he feels we would have 30 minutes equally divided prior to the vote.

The two leaders have to work out what the sequence of votes is going to be. We have the Dodd amendment which has been laid down. We have the Edwards amendment which is pending. We have Senator Reed of Rhode Island offering an amendment on LIHEAP, cosponsored with Senator Collins. We have Senator Dayton coming in a few minutes to offer one on corporate expatriation. They have to figure out the sequencing of votes. We are trying to do as we have been told--to offer as many amendments as possible. I suggest this can be worked out between the Senators from New Hampshire and Connecticut, but we would like to get to this.

If my friend will withhold, my only point is that we have been trying to do as your leader wants us to do and line up a bunch of amendments. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock, and I have announced that previously. He is not going to take too long. But I am happy to go along with what the Senator suggested. We will get the Reed amendment laid down and come back to the Dodd amendment.

I think the Senator's original suggestion is the better of the two. I ask unanimous consent the Dodd amendment be set aside and Senator Reed be recognized to offer his amendment, speak up to 15 minutes, and then we will return to the Dodd amendment and try to work out something.

There will be ample time later for her to do that.

Yes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we know the Senator is acting in good faith. We don't have a copy of this amendment. We have a pretty good idea of what it is. We are confident that we have a general understanding of the amendment. We believe this would be appropriate.

We hope, when this debate is completed, that Senator Dayton will have an opportunity to offer his amendment. He is scheduled to be here at 1 o'clock. Senator Inhofe is also here. But let us take one step at a time. Therefore, we have no objection. Let me also say that debate on this may not all be completed this afternoon. Senator Dodd would reserve whatever time is left of his 30 minutes.

Mr. President, this has been cleared with the majority. I ask unanimous consent that the consent request with respect to the Edwards amendment be modified to the Senate resuming consideration of the amendment at 2:15 p.m., with the previous provision still applicable.

Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut has reserved his time, as has the Senator from New Hampshire. I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum and, shortly thereafter, call it off with hopes we can move to the Dayton amendment and set aside the pending amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd have remaining be preserved and the quorum call, which I will make immediately, not be charged to their time.

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

Mr. President, my friend from Wyoming is here and wishes to speak on the Edwards amendment. Under the order we just entered, that is not to recur until 2:15 p.m. If the Senator wishes to speak, we can take him out of order, if Senator Dayton is willing to wait 10 minutes while the Senator from Wyoming speaks.

Mr. President, I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside; that Senator Dayton be recognized to offer an amendment on corporate expatriation; and that following his recognition, Senator Thomas be recognized for 10 minutes to speak on the Edwards amendment.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, if he will simply seek recognition and send his amendment to the desk, then Senator Thomas will be recognized to speak for 10 minutes.

Amendment No. 80

I would like to ask the Senator a question. I personally appreciate the Senator stepping forward. It should come from the State of Minnesota. Senator Wellstone believed in this strongly.

I remember the Senator advocating this. When I think of our friend Paul and his untimely death in the terrible airplane crash, I feel badly. I feel good about your moving forward with this amendment that Paul and I worked on together in the Senate. It is a modest amendment.

The Senator recognizes, does he not, that this amendment does not apply to nonhomeland security or defense contracts? Maybe we will do something about these companies later. I don't believe they should be able to have a contract with Health and Human Services, with the Department of the Interior, or any of the Federal agencies. However, we have limited this amendment to homeland security and defense. Does the Senator acknowledge that?

The Senator would also acknowledge, would he not, that this is not a permanent ban. All they have to do is say let me do what I should have done in the first place, just pay American taxes.

There are all kinds of reincorporations that take place every day in corporate America. They could simply reincorporate in Delaware or Nevada or Minnesota or any place they felt appropriate and they would be right back, being able to get all the contracts they want.

My third inquiry to the Senator from Minnesota: I know some of our friends who are lobbyists, as you have indicated, public relations representatives--I think, with a straight face they really would have trouble advocating for this. Would the Senator acknowledge that?

I appreciate the Senator's attention.

Mr. President, tax loopholes allow dozens of U.S. corporations to move their headquarters, but they move them on paper only, to tax haven countries to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. It was just a short time ago that Senator Wellstone and I offered an amendment to bar the Department of Homeland Security from awarding Government contracts to these corporate tax runaways. The Senate adopted that amendment unanimously. But in the homeland security bill that passed the last little bit that we were here last year, they cut this amendment.

It is a sad reality that these corporate expatriations are technically legal under current law. But legal or not, there is no reason U.S. Government contracts should be awarded to these tax runaways. These are lucrative Government contracts and we should not reward these companies for doing what they have done.

Senator Wellstone and I believed these corporations, if they want Federal contracts so badly, they should simply come home, come back to the United States and be eligible to bid on homeland security contracts. If they didn't want to do that, then they should go lobby, for example, the Government of Canada or Bermuda or the Cayman Islands for contracts there.

Some of these companies have indicated: We have been in business in America for a long time. They should stay in business in America. These corporations are shams. We have companies that file paperwork, set up not one but sometimes more than one corporation. One company has three British employees in a little office in Hamilton, Bermuda, but by having these three individuals in Hamilton, Bermuda, they can avoid paying up to $40 million every year in U.S. income taxes.

This bill would forbid foreign corporations involved in these transactions from holding Government contracts with the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security. It would not restrict major corporations operating in the United States

from winning millions of dollars from the Government in contracts.

I am not going to pinpoint companies. I have read on the Senate floor just a few months ago the names of these companies that are doing these things. This amendment will finally correct the record and accomplish what Senator Wellstone worked for last year. It should have been a priority in the legislation to guarantee the Department of Homeland Security booked its business with corporations that do their share of bearing the burdens of protecting this country. What they have done is they are bearing the burden to protect their own companies, not their own country. The homeland security law is more concerned with window dressing on this issue because what is in the homeland security bill still allows these companies to have huge Government contracts, homeland security contracts.

One contract I have here, $144,844,000 is what they are getting, even though they have incorporated in Bermuda.

Another company, not as large as the first, but almost $5 million. We have another company, $6 million; $17 million; another company, $249 million; another company, $2 million; $248 million--it is on and on with these what I would think would be embarrassing to them. Apparently it is not embarrassing enough that they pay corporate taxes in the United States like other companies.

I again extend my appreciation to the Senator from Minnesota for this amendment and I hope the many people who are in favor of this legislation will speak in favor of the legislation and we can have a resounding vote like we did when it passed unanimously last year. This would be one way to honor the dignity of Paul Wellstone.

I would answer my friend by saying Senator Wellstone, as we know, stood for the small guy. He was concerned about those people who did not have the large lobbying contracts. I think the Senator from Minnesota is absolutely right. The senior Senator from Minnesota is right in that this amendment would help a lot of the small people-- small in stature, big in character, like Paul Wellstone--the people Paul Wellstone would try to protect. That is because people who are not paying these taxes prevent us from providing more money for LIHEAP, for which he advocated all the time. It would allow us to provide more money for education, which he talked about, and he could do that because he was a college professor. It would allow more money for the global AIDS epidemic that he talked about.

This money that these corporations are not paying is more money that other taxpayers have to come up with. We have expenses that have to be met. We have programs that have to be funded. This amendment would force some of these unpatriotic companies into being more patriotic. They would be more patriotic because they would be forced to be more patriotic. If they want to have Government contracts with the Homeland Security Department and Homeland Defense Department, they would have to be patriotic.

So I answer the question with a resounding yes. This would mean a lot to Paul Wellstone, that his legacy is not forgotten, nor the things for which he fought.

A lot of these things he fought for alone. I can remember this issue that he was beaten up on pretty good on the Senate floor--until he was able to talk and explain. Like many of the things that Paul Wellstone brought out of the dark into the light, in the light of day it all looked better. I hope we all support this the way we did before.

This is an important amendment and I repeat, it would honor one of the most courageous people I have ever known--physically and intellectually--Paul Wellstone.

If I could respond to my colleague through the Chair, let me say the defense of this previously was that these are just good lawyers, good tax men. This is the way the law is written so why shouldn't they take advantage of it?

What the Senator from Minnesota and I are trying to do is change the law so that this is not this tax loophole. We know and people know that there are lots of tax loopholes. They are hard to plug because of the huge lobby which they have. We try to plug them. The ones that benefit are some of the largest corporations in America--I am sorry to say-- avoiding billions of dollars in taxes. It is not fair. They reply by saying, well, these people have good lawyers and good accountants. That doesn't justify what they are doing. In fact, it even signifies that we need to do this as quickly as possible to stop these people from doing this and make it easier for the rest of the people in America who are paying their fair share.

Mr. President, we are waiting now until 2:30 when Senator Inhofe is to appear. We understand he will close with the Edwards amendment.

We want the Record to be spread with the fact that we have done everything we can to move this legislation along. We were ready to go early this morning. We had to wait until the other side was ready to move on the bill. We have done our best to plug all the timeslots that have been in existence this morning. I want the Record to reflect that we are doing nothing to slow this down.

I see Senator Inhofe is here now. If he is ready to speak, we could move the 2:30 time up to whatever time is appropriate for the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Senator was scheduled for 2:30. We are ready now.

I am to be corrected. I was told by the floor staff that I was wrong and the Senator is right. It is 2:15. We don't need to change anything. We ask unanimous consent to return to the Edwards amendment. I think that is the order.

Mr. President, if my friend will withhold, I have a couple comments I would like to make.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the second-degree amendment of my friend, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The amendment offered by Senator Edwards, and cosponsored by Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Daschle, and Senator Reid of Nevada, really is a very modest amendment.

This administration has gone ahead with the most radical rewriting of the clean air rules in 30 years. Let me repeat that. The administration, administratively, has caused the most radical rewriting of the clean air rules in 30 years. They have not studied what the effects of these rules will be for people's health and the environment. I think Senators on both sides of the gaisle have asked for this study. They have refused to do it.

This amendment simply says, let's wait 6 months--just 6 months--and get a real study of how this amendment will affect people. Our amendment says, because these rules have the potential to be harmful, we should study them first to make sure we know how they will affect people's health. The amendment says, let's wait until we get that settled--6 months, a half a year--before letting the rules become final.

The second-degree amendment says: Yes, we need to study those rules, but let's have the study after the rules go into effect; that is, let the rules go into effect first; and, second, we will study the effects. That means you are rolling the dice with people's health.

What this second-degree amendment says is, we will take our chances with the health of your children, with the health of your parents. What we say is, let the amendment go into effect after we have studied the issue.

What are we going to do a year from now if this study shows--and I am confident it will--that these radical changes will have made people's health worse? What are we going to say to senior citizens who are suffering from respiratory illnesses, as a great deal do?

It was less than a year ago that one of the weekly magazines--I believe it was Newsweek; ran a front-page article that talked about the asthma epidemic sweeping this country afflicting our children. Although they do not determinatively know why, one of the conclusions they arrive at is because of the bad air. However, I don't think we need scientific studies to show that.

By allowing the administration to go forward with this rule, what we are really saying is we do not care. We want these companies to go ahead and be able to continue their polluting--yet we only studied two companies.

We hear that the Environmental Protection Agency today has actually

done the environmental analysis and it shows that these radical rule changes would protect the environment. That is foolishness. It is not true.

The EPA gave us hundreds of pages of old, irrelevant reports.

They said their assessment was qualitative and not quantitative. That is a buzzword for ``we have done nothing.'' It means they didn't do real hard research in how these changes would affect people, children with asthma, and seniors with respiratory illness.

One group did the real hard research. The Environmental Integrity Project looked at two factories and found that just with these two factories, the administration rules would increase pollution by more than 120 tons a year. One of these EPA studies done by the current Environmental Protection Agency points to Delaware as a model. Companies in Delaware have taken some good measures to reduce pollution. That is true. But as industries in Delaware have pointed out and as Senator Biden has pointed out, this administration is not following the Delaware model. They are following a different and anti- environmental model.

The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina does not discourage energy efficiency. All of us support more energy efficiency. We support reform of the New Source Review. We want to reduce pollution at the same time as we reform. We don't want reform being an excuse to increase pollution. The new rules would increase pollution.

Again, the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina is a modest amendment. It says: Look before you leap. However, what we are being told to do with the second-degree amendment is look after you leap. That is not the same.

Look before you leap; that is what we should do. The second-degree amendment is misguided, misdirected. It takes away from the importance and the dignity of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina which simply says, the President wants to move forward with radical changes in the Clean Air Act, an act which has been in effect for some 30 years, so before we do this, let's first wait 6 months to see if the changes the administration suggested will hurt the environment.

I certainly hope the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina passes in its form before the Senate and that the second-degree amendment does not pass. I say that because if you look at the track record of the administration, you are looking at a track record that is not good.

We know the administration came out initially with an effort to change the arsenic standards in water. We were able to turn that back. We know the administration has worked very hard to make sure that the rules relating to testing children to find out if lead in their environment is bad--they tried to eliminate that. We were able to stop that.

Clean water: The administration proposed earlier this month changes for managing waterways under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rules would affect enforcement of the Clean Water Act by defining protected and unprotected lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. This rule would remove 20 million acres of wetlands from protection.

On January 3--just a few weeks ago--the administration issued categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act for certain timber projects. As a result, the agency will be able to approve logging in burned, diseased, and insect-infested forests without completing individual environmental reviews.

On December 31, the administration proposed regulations that would allow tuna caught by encircling dolphins to be labeled ``dolphin safe.'' For the last 5 years, tuna caught using dolphins as targets were barred from bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label.

Two days after Christmas, the administration came up with a Christmas present when they issued new guidelines that would allow more development of wetlands and additional mitigation. However, the existence of wetlands is important because they filter drinking water, retain flood waters, and support wildlife.

The administration on December 23--2 days before Christmas--issued a final rule that would allow States to claim ownership of roads in national parks, forests, wilderness areas, and other public lands. Under this rule, States could assert claims to thousands of miles of dirt roads, trails, and wagon tracks--many of which are in wilderness areas and other public lands.

On December 19, the administration issued a cost-benefit report calling for more than 300 rules to be revised and eliminated, or expanded. These changes affect food safety standards, arsenic in drinking water, energy conservation standards, and logging in national forests.

Again dealing with clean water, on December 16 they issued final regulations under a court-ordered deadline that would weaken clean water protections concerning concentrated animal feeding operations. The new rule will affect 15,000 large and medium size U.S. corporate farms.

On salmon protection, the administration proposed new regulations to weaken salmon protections and to allow increased logging in the Pacific.

On November 22 of last year, the administration issued final regulations that would weaken the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program. The administration has issued standards relating to drilling in national parks. They approved natural gas drilling in Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, the Nation's longest stretch of undeveloped beach. They are going to take care of that and allow drilling there.

On climate change, on November 20 the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality said: ``Climate change is a technology issue.'' He believes technological innovations, not curbs on emissions of greenhouse gases, are the solution to global climate change.

Snowmobiles, something on which I have worked hard: The administration proposed to increase the number of snowmobiles allowed in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks by more than 35 percent, even though the rangers there must use respirators and masks because the air is so bad because of the snowmobiles.

Should we not, with a record like this, take 6 months to see if the rules are going to be bad? I didn't read all of them, but you get the idea why I am a little suspect about the rules and why we should not leap before we look. Let's look, have a study done to find out if the rules are as bad as the environmental community says they are.

I hope the second-degree amendment of my friend from Oklahoma is defeated and we have an up-or-down vote on the amendment to call for a study before we enact the very extreme radical rule changes with the Clean Air Act.

The Senator from Rhode Island will offer a very important amendment on unemployment insurance. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from North Dakota be recognized to speak for 15 minutes; following that, the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized to offer an amendment.

I have spoken to the manager of the bill and have indicated to him that we were going to offer this amendment. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that when Senator Reed offers his amendment the pending amendment be set aside. If there is a problem with that, that would give time to someone on the other side to be available to object having that set aside.

My friend, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, has come to this Chamber on other occasions with his chart and talked about the Democratic amendments. What he has not talked about is the fact that a year ago, we had a huge surplus. There are estimates that it was as much as $7.2 trillion--some say it was only $6 trillion--over a 10-year period. As a result of what has taken place with this administration, that is gone. We are now spending in the red and using Social Security surpluses to pay for the Bush economic plan.

I was on a TV program with Senator Nickles, who was my counterpart. The person doing the interviewing showed Senator Nickles a chart. From the time that Harry Truman was President until today, going through every President, every President of the United

States has created jobs, without exception, except the current President Bush. In fact, he has done so poorly in job creation that he has lost over 2 million jobs.

I hope the American people understand we are offering these amendments because we believe the American people deserve more than tax cuts for the rich.

The present administration's tax cut plan will increase the deficit by almost $1 trillion over 10 years. I hope my friend from Pennsylvania would vote against that if he is concerned about deficits, because that is a huge deficit builder.

Every time my friend, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, comes to the Chamber with his chart, we are going to also talk about what this administration has done that has adversely affected the American people.

The amendments offered by the Democrats--which are said to be ``outrageous things''--fund school districts around America to take care of handicapped children. I know that is somewhat radical that we want to pay for handicapped children to be educated, but that is what we have decided we would like to do, that we would fully fund the IDEA program. There is not a school district in America that opposes that.

Some of the other amendments funded the unfunded mandates that have taken place with our passing the homeland security bill. I know the State of Nevada badly needs that money because we have been forced to do things that the Federal Government has passed on to us that we cannot afford to do. The State of Nevada needs help. That is why today States have deficits of about $100 billion.

The deficit of the State of California alone is $35 or $40 billion, but of course it has 15 percent of the population of this country.

So they can bring out all the charts they want to talk about these amendments the Democrats are offering. The reason we have voted nearly unanimously for every one of these amendments is because it is the right thing to do for the people who are not represented by the Gucci shoe crowd, the big limousine crowd.

My friend from Rhode Island is going to offer an amendment to take care of about a million people who have no unemployment insurance. The unemployment rate has increased by millions under this President. It has gone from 4 percent to 6 percent. Job losses, as I have indicated, are over 2 million. The private sector has lost 2.4 million jobs since President Bush took office. Unemployment is staggering. A total of almost 9 million people were unemployed in December. The length of unemployment, which is more than 26 weeks, increased by 122,000 in December alone, the biggest 1-month increase in a long time.

There are a great deal of problems with this economy. We believe there should be a tax plan to stimulate the economy. What we believe should take place is an immediate tax cut. It should be directed toward the middle class. It should have no long-term impact on the deficit in this country.

I talked earlier about the Bush economic record. It is the only administration to lose private jobs in more than 50 years. We have had no other administration that has not created jobs. His dad came close. He almost was in the negative. He was the lowest we had since Eisenhower. But it is topped by this President. Eisenhower created increased employment by one-half of 1 percent, Kennedy by 2 percent, Johnson by 3.6 percent, Nixon by 2.1 percent, Ford by .18 percent, Carter by 3.3 percent, Reagan by 2.3 percent, George H.W. Bush by .4 percent, Clinton by 2.6 percent; George W. Bush has lost jobs. He is the only president whose job creation is in the negative.

We do not need people to lecture us on how bad the Democratic amendments are. Our amendments are targeted toward American people, not targeted toward the rich.

I am happy to maintain the floor and yield to my friend from Delaware.

If I could respond to my friend, the distinguished Senator, formally chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations Committee, the only place the Senator has misspoken is that the tax cut will be near $1 trillion when interest is included, near $1 trillion.

And I say to my friend, the Senator is absolutely right.

We have to have a secure nation. The amendments we have supported and were offered by Senator Byrd are amendments that would give the State of Delaware, the State of North Dakota, and the State of Nevada, a little bit of relief from the unfunded mandates we passed on.

I also remind my friend from Pennsylvania who was talking about how bad the amendments were; he talked a lot about the deficit. We are not talking as ``pie in the sky.'' We, as Democrats, have a ledger you can look to of success. For the first time in modern history, during the Clinton years, we were spending less money than we were taking in. The last year of the Clinton administration, they were coming to us saying: Better not retire that debt so quickly because you could have an adverse effect on the economy. I guess someone in the Bush administration heard that because they listened clearly. Instead of having a surplus, as we had, they have gone gang busters.

I have a unanimous consent request, if my friend will yield.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Clinton, Bingaman, Johnson, and Schumer be added as cosponsors to the Dodd amendment No. 71.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have spoken to the floor staff. Following the statement of Senator Voinovich, Senator Durbin wishes to speak on the amendment that Senator Reed is going to offer.

I think that will be just fine. We will have no objection.

I have spoken to the majority. They recognize that the next amendment we want to offer is by the Senator from Florida. We understand that Senator Inhofe will be ready to go also. I am sure we will get that consent as soon as the debate on unemployment insurance is completed.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, would it not be better, rather than having the rule going into effect and having all the people, from our perspective, start polluting while the study is taking place, to find out which side is right? We are saying to have the NAS study the issue, hold this off for 6 months, and then there should be a determination made as to whether the rule as proposed by the administration affects people.

I don't see--and I ask my friend from Ohio, the distinguished junior Senator--what harm can be done in holding off for 6 months this rule going into effect when, if we don't hold off, our reasoning would be, as indicated in the study I talked about earlier today, where just 2 months--2 plans would put into the environment 120 tons of bad things every year.

Would it not be better to wait and see what the study of the National Academy of Sciences comes up with before the rule went into effect?

Mr. President, I will respond simply to my friend that the environmental community has a different view. They believe this radical rule change would simply allow pollution to take place that is not allowed now.

We hear that the rules the administration has made are the same as rules made in the Clinton administration. This simply isn't true. Here is what Carol Browner has said:

Some have suggested that the administration's announced

changes are changes the Clinton administration supported.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fundamental to

everything we did was a commitment to ongoing air quality

improvements. There is no guarantee, and more importantly, no

evidence or disclosure demonstrating that the

administration's announced final or proposed changes will

make the air cleaner. In fact, they will allow the air to

become dirtier.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I renew my request to vitiate the quorum call.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the leaders set a time for the budget waiver I am going to be suggesting in just a second. That is part of the unanimous consent request.

Therefore, on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I move to waive the Budget Act under the requisite rules of the Senate.

Mr. President, we have some business here to conduct.

No objection. Mr. President, I ask the record reflect I do not waive any of my rights under the motion that the Senator from Oklahoma offered, and I would renew my motion to waive at a subsequent time.

I also made a request. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I want to make sure the record is reflective that I do not waive any of my rights on the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. President, while I still have the floor, we have a few minutes until 5 o'clock when debate on the AMBER Alert matter takes place. We have two matters. We have the Senator from West Virginia to be heard--I did see him here. He wanted to speak on the Ridge nomination, which is going to come up. He wanted to get that debate out of the way.

We also have Senator Nelson here, who has been patiently waiting, who wishes to offer an amendment on his behalf and that of Senator Inhofe. We would need consent to set aside the pending amendment to allow him to do that.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside for the Senator from Florida to offer his amendment. He said he would need 25 or 30 minutes to speak, but he said that he could do that this afternoon in 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reed amendment on unemployment insurance which is before the body be recalled, and I move to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act for the consideration of the Reed amendment. Senator Nickles also raised a point of order. I just want to move to waive it. Such time as we vote on it will be the decision of the body.

I asked that the Reed amendment be recalled. I ask for regular order and renew my unanimous consent request to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act for consideration of the Reed amendment.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I ask unanimous consent that we return to the Nelson amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Edwards, Dayton, Corzine, and Kerry, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, this amendment will add $1.5 billion to the appropriations omnibus bill for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as IDEA. This is a matter with which all of my colleagues are very familiar. We have debated this matter on numerous occasions over the years. A brief history about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act may be in order.

It has been almost 30 years--28 years--since Congress passed this legislation in 1975. The promise made in 1975 was that we would provide the States with 40 percent of the funding to educate children with special education needs. We started out with a far lower commitment, and over the years the States have assumed the lion's share of this responsibility. But over the years, we have failed to meet the commitment we made to the States almost 30 years ago.

As a result of efforts by this body in the previous Congress, we came very close to achieving the full funding promise that was made many years ago. In fact, our distinguished colleagues and friends, Senator Jeffords, Senator Hagel, and Senator Harkin, offered an amendment in the previous Congress, which enjoyed unanimous support, to increase the funding over a series of years, that would reach the full funding level as required by the agreement reached in 1975.

Unfortunately, the President and the Republican leadership of the other body refused to agree to the Senate unanimous vote on full funding for special education. As a result of that opposition by the President and by the leadership of the other body, the bipartisan efforts of the Senate and the good work of Senator Hagel, Senator Jeffords, Senator Harkin, and many of us who have worked on this issue over the years failed. In fact, I recall some 15 years ago when I was a member of the Budget Committee and offered in the committee the language which required full funding of special education needs. My friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, was on that committee that year. I remember because he cast a vote with me in the Budget Committee, but we failed on a tie vote in the Budget Committee to get the increased funding.

Over the years, we have had good bipartisan support to do everything we could to fully fund IDEA, and every year, for one reason or another, Congress finds a way to avoid its responsibility.

I do not lay that on the shoulders of the Senate because recently we have met the promise we made. My colleagues here understand and know well how strongly the Governors, mayors, and county executives across this country feel about this issue. This is one of their major issues. When we ask them what are the important areas in which we can assist them, inevitably over the years they have listed special education as one of the most important areas in which we can assist them by meeting our obligations we made some 30 years ago.

When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, it promised to help States meet their constitutional obligation to provide

children with disabilities a free appropriate education by paying for 40 percent of those costs.

The States came to us in 1975 and said: We need your help on this issue. As I said, some 30 years ago, we said we would step in and help, just as we have done with title I for children who have different kinds of needs. Those needs are economic because of the levels of poverty across the country. We said this also is an area where we think the Federal Government ought to step up and provide help to the States.

The cost of special education--and again, I am preaching to the choir when I talk to my colleagues about this issue because they know these issues as well as, if not better than, I do. Talk to any mayor, county executive, Governor, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, and they will tell you that the cost of special education is very high. In fact, in some small towns--I know in my State and I am confident in the State of the Presiding Officer and the States of my good friends from Vermont or Rhode Island--two or three children with special education needs can so distort a local budget with the tremendous increase in cost that it becomes almost prohibitive for those smaller communities to meet the obligations. That is why we have heard so many loud voices over so many years calling on us to step up and meet our obligation.

We made a promise. In 1975, we said: As representatives of the Federal Government, we will come up with 40 percent of the cost of this program. That is our obligation. We will do that. Here we are almost 30 years later, and we have reached a 15-percent level. We are still short by some 25 percent of the costs of special education.

We have made great strides in going from zero to 15 percent, particularly in the last 4 or 5 years, but we are still way short.

The amendment I offer this afternoon provides for an additional $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill for an additional 1 year. This is not a full-funding amendment. I am not asking in this amendment for full funding over the next several years. Since this bill only deals with 1 fiscal year, I am merely trying to add these additional dollars which will get us closer to the obligations.

Two years ago, a bipartisan group of 31 Members of this body introduced S. 466 to direct the appropriations of funds, to fully fund IDEA by 2007. That bill was the foundation of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment passed by the Senate on a unanimous vote would have increased Federal support for special education by $2.5 billion per year until we reach full funding. Unfortunately, as I mentioned a few moments ago, because of strong opposition from the President of the United States and the Republican House leadership, the provision adopted unanimously by this body was not included in the final No Child Left Behind Act. It made an oxymoron of the title of that bill, No Child Left Behind, when, in fact, we excluded the kids with special education needs from the legislation. So it was No Child Left Behind unless you have special education needs and disabilities.

Today's amendment will enable us once again as a bipartisan Senate to take the first step that we recommitted ourselves to in 2001 by increasing the funding for special education by $2.5 billion for fiscal year 2002 to 2003. We are calling upon our colleagues to do just that.

In my State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund special education programs, our school districts--as is true in almost every other State in the country--are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities.

The costs borne by local communities and school districts are rising dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special education costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular education costs. Our schools need our help, and this amendment is an opportunity, as we begin this 108th Congress, to do just that.

Of course, no one in my State--or any other State, for that matter, in our great Nation--questions the value of making sure the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is both a landmark education law and a landmark civil rights law, be fully implemented. The only question is how best to do that, and a large part of the answer lies in this amendment.

This amendment will demonstrate that we intend to match our commitment to universal access to education with a commitment to do everything we can to help our States and schools provide that access. This amendment, further, will help not only our children in schools, but it will also help entire communities by easing their tax burden.

Our failure to fully fund IDEA does not make the issue go away. When we do not meet our obligation, then a mayor or county executive at the local level has no alternative; they have to, under their constitutions, meet these responsibilities. So when we duck our responsibility, we only increase the burdens locally. They can slash their budgets locally in other vitally needed areas or they can increase taxes.

As all of us know, there are not many options left at the local level. At the local level, that is where the rubber hits the road, where people need and require that certain obligations be met. Unfortunately, when we do not step to the plate and fulfill our promises on the national level, then we only increase tremendously the burden on our Governors, mayors, and county executives all across this great country.

Homeowners and businesspeople end up paying higher taxes or watch services they depend upon be slashed, not only in my own State, but all around this country, because so much of education is paid for through local property taxes.

Again, I do not need to recite to my colleagues the tremendous burdens that are being felt by local and State budgets all across this country. The estimates are now that deficits running at the State level may hover around $100 billion this year and only get worse next year and the year after. In my State alone, it is about half a billion this year. My Governor tells me it is going to be about $1.3 billion next year. I do not know what it is in the State of Alabama, but I presume it might be like what Connecticut is. I think California is around $34 billion.

I heard some of my colleagues say the other day, in Michigan it is $4 billion or $5 billion. I think someone said in Minnesota it was like $4 billion or $5 billion.

We have these mounting deficits at the State and local level. There is a need in special education. There was a promise made some 30 years ago by the Federal Government. What I am asking for in this amendment on the omnibus bill is that we take out the $1.5 billion, if we could, and see if we cannot step in and provide some real relief for our States and localities in their hour of need and the need of families who have a child with special needs.

The President recently proposed another plan to cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars for some of the wealthiest Americans. I represent one of the most affluent States in the country. I probably have a higher percentage of my population who would benefit very directly as a result of the President's tax proposals. Without equivocation or hesitation, the overwhelming majority of the people in my State, including the most affluent, honestly believe the best use of resources is things such as special education. While they, as everyone else, would love to have a tax cut--there is nothing new about that-- when asked to balance the priorities and needs of a nation, they understand providing tax relief for people in the top 1, 2 or 3 percent of income earners in the country at a moment such as this is not a wise or prudent use of the resources of this Nation when there are so many other demands that must be met.

I understand the Federal Government faces the same budget challenges in today's slumping economy as do our States and towns, but we cannot accept the argument that because our economy is faltering we cannot provide our children and their families with critical educational resources and otherwise help average Americans. We would and should not accept that argument if our homeland security or national defense were at stake, and we certainly cannot afford to do it here, either.

Investment in education is no less important now than it was when our economy was more healthy. It is essential to our long-term national economic security. So I ask my colleagues

to seize this opportunity and choose to help our schools but, more importantly, our families and young children who need these resources in order to maximize their potential.

I do not know of anyone, regardless of to which party they belong, Conservative, Liberal or moderate, whatever label one wants to put on themselves politically, that when they look in the eyes of a child who has special needs, can say, I am sorry right now but we cannot provide the resources to their town, county, local, or our State government because we have these other priorities that are making too many demands on us. That is not my America.

My America says, when there is a child with disabilities in need we step to the plate and provide them the kind of help they ought to have so they have a chance to become independent and maximize their potential to see to it that they can be productive citizens and add to the great strength and wealth of our Nation.

I can go down the list of the various States and what they will lose or gain. At the end of my statement, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter written on January 16, 2003, to the majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, in which they specifically go down and list the importance of this amendment and the funding I am asking for, the $1.5 billion, as one of their top priorities. In fact, they list it as the top priority.

There are a whole list of organizations that support full funding for IDEA. I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

I am not asking for full funding with this amendment. I am asking for the $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill. I am confident every one of these organizations would support this amendment, even though it is not full funding, but rather the additional amounts this year when we consider the pressures on our States.

Lastly, in looking at the differences in our States--the top State on the list is that of the Presiding Officer--the difference right away where there is a gap between what I am offering and the omnibus bill, it is a little less than $30 million in the State of Alabama, and this amendment would make up the difference. Going down further, in my own State of Connecticut, the difference would be about $18 million. In the State of Vermont, the difference would be about $3 million. In the State of Rhode Island, the difference would be about $5 million in this amendment. What a difference it would make.

I saw my colleague from Missouri in the Chamber recently. In the State of Missouri, the difference would be about $30 million.

I have all 50 States listed and the difference that this $1.5 billion could make. That may not sound like much when a State is facing billions of dollars in deficits, but the fact that we might step up to the plate in Nevada--I apologize to my friend of Nevada, who is sitting right in front of me, but I did not see him--it is about $10 million in his State.

I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record at the end of my statement. It is printed on both sides of one sheet of paper. Members can then have an idea of what the benefit of this small amendment could mean to them and their States.

There are other Members who want to be heard on this issue. As we begin this debate in this Congress, this is one area on which we ought to find common ground. We will have our differences on other issues but every one of our States, Governors, mayors, and families with children with disabilities are asking us to step up and do what we can for them. As we start out in the year 2003, this modest amendment could make such a difference to people across this country and is something we ought to be able to join forces together on and adopt.

Exhibit 1

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.

Hon. Bill Frist,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Tom Daschle,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: On behalf of the

nation's Governors, we are writing to express our support for

several key provisions of the (FY) 2003 omnibus

appropriations bill affecting state programs. First, we

appreciate that the bill would maintain the FY 2003 highway

program investment level at $31.8 billion. With a sluggish

economy and many states facing budgetary difficulties, now is

not the time to cut federal highway investment. In addition,

Governors strongly support the $1.5 billion provided in the

bill to implement the new election reform law. We also

appreciate that the bill includes an extension of the

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant

and related programs through September 30, 2003. It is

critical that states have reliability of funds in order to

continue operating their welfare reform programs while

Congress considers TANF reauthorization.

We would also like to express our support for the following

amendments:

Dodd Amendment. The Governors support Senator Dodd's

amendment calling for a $1.5 billion increase in state grants

for special education. We are committed to continuously

improving the academic performance of all students, including

students with disabilities. The nation's Governors support

this amendment and urge Congress to continue to work toward

enacting legislation that makes the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding a mandatory

expenditure with incremental increases towards meeting the 40

percent federal requirement.

Murray amendment. The Governors support providing the

necessary funding for Amtrak to support the continuation of a

national passenger rail system as proposed by Senator Murray.

Amtrak must be provided a sufficient level of funding to

guarantee there will be no break or threat of a break in

service. We must be certain that Amtrak will not encounter

the rolling financial crises it experienced during the past

year.

Chafee-Rockefeller amendment. The nation's Governors urge

your support for quick action on a bipartisan compromise to

protect resources in the State Children's Health Insurance

Program (S-CHIP). Preserving the S-CHIP funds that have

reverted to the federal treasury would keep $1.2 billion of

the FY 1998 and FY 1999 allocations within the program until

2004.

Harkin amendment. The Governors urge support for restoring

current funding levels to the Edward Byrne block grant

program for state and local law enforcement activities.

Finally, while Governors appreciate the inclusion of $2

billion for first responder grants, we urge support for the

President's original request of providing $3.5 billion

coordinated through the states. Just as Congress and the

President have responded by acting on a far-reaching

reorganization and consolidation of federal agencies, so too

the President recognized the critical role of states--the

first line of defense and the first line of coordination of

response to any attack. Thus, this should be meaningful, new

resources that respect the diversity, responsibilities, and

capabilities of states and the immediate need for resources

for national defense. Therefore, we encourage you to add an

additional $1.5 billion in first responder grant funds to the

$2 billion, so that we meet the President's recognition of

the need to be prepared to respond to and recover from any

terrorist attacks.

We greatly appreciate your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Governor Paul E. Patton,

Chairman.

Governor Dirk Kempthorne,

Vice Chairman.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

If the minority whip will yield, my intention was to make a few additional comments, but I have spoken on the amendment. I would like some idea of when we might do this. I know the Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment.

That is fine. We have a couple of other Members, I have just been informed, who would like to speak on the special education amendment. They are not here yet because of the conditions outside. In order to accommodate our colleague from Rhode Island, who is here--and Senator Dayton from Minnesota is on his way--we could work up a proposal and come back later in the afternoon when the other Members are here and finish up the debate on that and allow these other amendments to be debated, since those Senators are here.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield whatever time the Senator from Maryland needs.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut?

Mr. President, I will take 10 minutes. Will the Senator notify me when that is up?

Mr. President, I want to express some thoughts. I thank my colleagues for, once again, reconfirming support for the special education program. That is heartening. As the Senator from Maryland pointed out, of course, if we follow the plan of the present occupant of the White House, we will be talking about three decades more--we will have to wait a longer time than we have waited to complete the 40- percent requirement that we have already endured.

So if you are a mayor or a county executive or a Governor, you can take real heart in the fact that for about the next three decades we will be at this debate on getting full funding--if we rely on the administration's plans.

I will remind my colleagues once again that this body and the previous Congress voted unanimously for a full funding program over the next 6 years for special education. It was the administration--the present administration--and the leadership of the other body--the Republican leadership--that killed the proposal the Senate unanimously supported. That is where we are. Those are the facts as we find them today. We can go back and revisit history if you want, but the fact is that the Governors and mayors out there may find a history lesson interesting, but they want to know what we are going to do. What is this administration going to do? What has this administration done? What is the Republican leadership in the Senate and House going to have to do if we are going to meet the obligations we talk about?

So what we have here--as the Senator from New Hampshire suggests he will support--is the $1.5 billion. He is going to do so by adding further to the across-the-board cuts in domestic spending--adding to the impact of the already 2.9 percent across-the-board cuts. I will share with my colleagues what this means.

Now, $1.5 billion is not a huge amount as a percentage--whatever it is, four-tenths of 1 percent. Add that, if you will, to the 2.9. The WIC Program will be cut by $137 million as a result of the 2.9-percent cut. The Food Safety Inspection Service will be cut by $22 million. The Food and Drug Administration will be cut by $40 million under these proposals. State-Justice-Commerce will be cut by $113 million in spending.

Go down to Head Start. This analysis shows what the 2.9-percent cut means in energy and water issues--there it is, a $239 million cut; environmental management, $203 million. There is a whole list of programs, including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Mississippi River Tributaries Program. If you look at Head Start, $63 million will be cut. Air traffic control--that ought to be good news for those who worry about domestic terrorism; transportation security, Coast Guard will be cut by $72 million. The VA-HUD--veterans take note--has $903 million in cuts; VA medical care, $692 million in cuts. So go ahead and add four-tenths of 1 percent to the already 2.9.

I don't hear anybody talking about a slight cut in the $670 billion tax cut in all we are proposing here. Then my colleagues say we will take your $1.5 billion, but we are going to give a ``haircut'' to every other domestic spending program except the tax cut, which goes to the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners. I represent a State that has probably a greater percentage of those income earners than almost any other State in the country. I can say with certainty that my constituents--those included, by the way--who would be the beneficiaries of this tax cut would tell you that at this particular juncture that kind of a tax cut, given the fiscal needs of this country, is unwise.

When my colleagues say we are going to make everybody pay a price, we are going to make that haircut of 2.9 percent, including the budget cuts I have suggested, and add this to it, just make sure you understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about a tax cut which taxes revenues over the table--I am not suggesting there isn't room for a tax cut. But how about including that in the proposal? Why is that particular area always left out and all we talk about are the domestic programs that affect families so strongly?

I guarantee you, by the way, as you start looking at Head Start, the WIC Program, food safety programs, while you are providing $1.5 billion in special education needs and simultaneously cutting back on these other programs, it is not uncommon for the same family and the same child to be the recipient on one hand of the 1.5, and simultaneously getting food in the WIC Program, food safety programs, and the Head Start programs.

Again, I don't know how you can sit here and look at a child who has autism or is suffering from juvenile diabetes, Down's Syndrome, or other special education needs and say: I am sorry we cannot touch the tax cuts, but you are going to have to take this cut in other areas. When my colleagues offer their side-by-side amendment and suggest yet further cuts, I think that is cruel. I think it is unnecessary. I think there are ways of doing this without going after some of these very issues that are so critically important to the well-being of our Nation. They have a lot to do with the economic security of our country as well.

We need to have a balanced approach. So, Mr. President, we will have a debate further along in this year on full funding again. I only hope the administration changes its view from the last Congress. I will reiterate what I said earlier. Governors and mayors list this as their top priority. Mr. Governor or Mr. Mayor, when the first amendment is voted on and we are telling you, by the way, we are going to help you out in special education, hold your breath because we are simultaneously reaching into your other pocket and causing you to raise taxes or cut other vital spending needs you may have because we are reaching in to rob you of the necessary resources you need as well to run your States and your communities. It is a cruel hoax, in a way, we are laying out before people.

I am not opposed to looking at reform efforts. We had a fine effort in 1997--some of my colleagues have forgotten this already--to look at the special education programs. Again, with the reauthorization, I presume we will look at them again. I certainly welcome that. Anytime we have a program such as IDEA, close examination of how well it is working, whether or not the intended beneficiaries are receiving the resources they need, is something we ought to do. It is the only responsible thing to do.

Let's not simultaneously suggest that we are going to have to wait for examination before we provide the resources to the States and communities. They do not have a chance of waiting. They have to provide for these children under existing law. Congress mandated it 28 years ago, and we have only gotten to 15, 16 percent of that 40-percent commitment.

The $1.5 billion in this amendment gets us a little closer to the 40- percent commitment. It raises and provides the resources to these communities for the fiscal year we are in already. We will come back again later in this Congress to see if we can get full funding set up in a way which we did a year and a half ago.

When the vote occurs on this amendment, there are two options: One, to provide the $1.5 billion while going after domestic spending programs, along the lines I mentioned already or, second, we can say we can do it and find the means of doing it, and one of the means is to reduce by a small amount the tax cut the President intends to provide for people in the country. The point being that most of the recipients of this tax cut are people who have incomes in excess of $250,000.

Tell that to a family with an autistic child. Tell that to a family with a child who has Down syndrome or serious learning disabilities: Sorry, we would like to provide that kind of help you need, but, you see, we have an obligation to provide a tax break to someone making $300,000, $400,000 a year. We cannot just quite meet the obligation

to you. I know we made a promise to do it. We said 28 years ago we would do it. We are up to 15 percent of that obligation. By the way, if you wait another 33 years, we will complete that obligation, 60 years after we made the promise. Then we will get you your resources because we cannot afford to give you the help you need without cutting everything else in the domestic area. Of course, we cannot touch the tax cut for the most affluent Americans.

I do not know of anyone outside the people in this town who believe in the logic of that argument. Nonetheless, watch and see what happens when we vote on this amendment. That is exactly what will happen. Go home and explain why we have to cut into these other areas to serve needy kids in this country.

Mr. President, I will take 1 additional minute. I repeat what I said earlier, this is not the America of which people think. We are blessed with great resources. We ought to have the common sense to find a balance, to see to it we meet our obligations when we make them; that we try to help those who are least able to help themselves and their families.

I underscore the point the Senator from Maryland made a few moments ago. Families of children with special needs face incredible pressures, especially those making $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000, $60,000. There are incredible pressures within that family. Why is it we cannot find the resources to help our States, our Governors, our county executives to do more to help these children?

Reforming the process, I am all for that. But the only way we can help is to go after the WIC Program, the Head Start Program, food safety programs, and the like? That I do not understand, and I defy my colleagues to ask an average American to explain it as well. They do not understand it when they hear that argument or we are going to wait another 33 years to meet the obligations under this program.

I feel passionately about this issue; I care deeply about this issue because it is the role that Government ought to play. When I look at families in my State and across the country--and I know the pressures they are feeling and what a small amount it is to offer some relief-- just some relief--to the families feeling this heat and pressure, the anxiety it causes--I do not understand that we cannot step up and meet the obligation because we cannot touch a tax cut that goes to the most affluent citizens of this country. I do not understand that situation. I hope my colleagues do not either. When the vote occurs tomorrow, I hope we will support the amendment that provides assistance but does not do so off the backs of people who can least afford it in the country.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and ask for immediate consideration of amendment No. 27, which is at the desk.

I yield.

Around 10 or 15 minutes. No longer.

Reserving my right to object, Senator Collins of Maine, also a cosponsor, wants to speak on this amendment.

So her rights will be protected.

Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today to increase funding for the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to $2 billion for this fiscal year. I am offering this amendment with my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Susan Collins. Senator Collins wanted to be here to offer the amendment with me, but she is traveling from Maine in very difficult weather circumstances today, and when she arrives this afternoon she will take the floor to speak on behalf of this amendment.

I also thank my colleagues, Senator Dayton, Senator Snowe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Cantwell, Senator Stabenow, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Levin, Senator Corzine, Senator Leahy, and Senator Durbin, who are all cosponsors of this amendment.

At this juncture I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chafee, Schumer, Harkin, Fitzgerald, Murray, Bingaman, and Lautenberg be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

As you can see, this amendment enjoys widespread and bipartisan support. I think it is clear, particularly given the weather today, that support is not unmerited.

Let me begin by offering a weather report, if you will. It is today, in Washington, around 30 degrees. But if you are outside, it feels much colder. The low will be somewhere around 14 degrees.

As you go along the country: Albany, NY, today, 17 degrees the high; Baltimore, 29 degrees; Chicago, 18 degrees; Cleveland, 15 degrees; Des Moines, IA, 12 degrees; Detroit, MI, 18 degrees; Milwaukee, 14 degrees; Omaha, 12 degrees; and my State, Rhode Island, they list the high as 23, but this morning when I left at 5 a.m. it was 5 degrees, but with the wind chill factor it was below zero.

This amendment is important because there are Americans who are suffering because of the cold. But it is not just about cold weather in certain parts of the country at this time of the year; the LIHEAP program is also important since it covers those hot stretches in the summertime when energy bills in the Southwest and the Southeast are astronomical and impact adversely low-income Americans.

We need this program throughout the year. We particularly need it today to protect people from the cold, but, as I said, those individuals who live in Alabama or Arkansas or Texas or southern California need LIHEAP in the summertime and it should be there for them, as it should be for those people who struggle today with the cold weather in the Northeast and Midwest.

In fact, yesterday the coldest place in America was Embarras, MN, minus 26 degrees. It is one thing to be in Embarras, but it is also something else to be freezing in Embarras. So I think we have to do something to ensure that we can protect low-income Americans from the cold that is affecting them today.

Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the LIHEAP program. They knew that people struggling with all sorts of expenses--raising a family, providing food to put on the table--they needed help in these cold months in the Northeast and those hot spells in the Southeast, to provide for assistance so they could afford the energy they needed.

During his campaign, President Bush promised to fully fund LIHEAP to help these low-income families meet their needs for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. If he stood by his promise, the President would demand the $2 billion for which we are asking; rather, he has proposed cutting that money. This year, despite rising energy prices, colder weather, and increased unemployment, the President's budget has proposed to cut LIHEAP by $300 million. This cut would deny assistance to literally hundreds of thousands of Americans. The appropriations bill that we are considering today does restore part of this funding. I commend and thank Senators Stevens and Byrd and Specter and Harkin and their staffs for their hard work to maintain this funding, but we want to restore an additional $300 million to bring it up to the $2 billion level that will just be, in terms of purchasing power, equal to last year. We want to do that and I hope we can do that today through this amendment process.

As I said, we could add this $300 million, but we are not requesting new funding. This amendment simply requires the administration to give the States the $300 million the Congress provided in the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Congress provided $300 million in LIHEAP funding 2 years ago to help these families meet their needs when energy costs increase, when there are significant disconnections of utilities because if you can't pay the gas bill or electric bill, eventually you will be disconnected and you will be without any type of energy.

All of these efforts in terms of funding LIHEAP have been urged on the present administration by the Governors. They understand because they are right there in the trenches, if you will, dealing with the issue of people literally freezing today and sweltering in the summertime.

Cutting heating assistance for seniors and low-income Americans is not the way to go, particularly when it is juxtaposed against proposed significant tax cuts. If we can't at least provide people with a warm shelter in the winter and a cool shelter in the summer when thinking about large-scale tax cuts, to me, seems somewhat inappropriate.

LIHEAP, even with our amendment, will be seriously underfunded. Providing this $2 billion in regular funding to the program will just equal the purchasing power of last year. What it does not recognize is that energy prices are soaring. Today, on the front page of the Providence Journal, there is an article about the cold wave that is sweeping our region of the country, but also the fact that in order to keep up with the demand for oil, which is our principal fuel, because the demand is so huge, our Governor had to suspend regulations to allow delivery drivers to work through periods of time when they are normally required to rest. What is also happening is the prices are jumping up because of uncertainty in Venezuela and uncertainty in the gulf.

This combination of increased prices, cold temperatures, and also an economy that sees more and more people unemployed, is the perfect storm, if you will, when it comes to requiring assistance for heating throughout the Northeast in particular.

There is something else that happens when people are challenged for energy, when they do without. They take their own improvisational means to keep warm. They turn the electric stove on and open up the oven. They go out and buy portable heaters. It is more than coincidence that the number of house fires shows a sharp increase in the months of cold weather in the Northeast because people are improvising. So this is another danger that must be recognized.

This amendment simply allows people to stay warm in the winter and to escape scorching heat in the summertime. It is something that is basic. It is something I believe we should support extensively. I am pleased and proud that so many of my colleagues have joined Senator Collins and me on a bipartisan basis. I hope this is one amendment we can quickly adopt and include in this omnibus appropriations bill. I hope, also, we can at least signal to those people who are looking for some modest assistance in these cold days that we have heard their calls, we are responding to our political leaders at the State level, the Governors, and we are giving them the resources to at least keep people from freezing in a very difficult time.

I asked in my initial statement that we call up amendment No. 27. I ask now it be called up.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rockefeller be added to the amendment as a cosponsor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr. (Ensign) Without objection, it is so ordered.

I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I have no objection. I think I can assure the Senator that I will be finished before 4 o'clock.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, I call up amendment No. 40.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Durbin and several other of my colleagues in calling for an extension of Federal unemployment benefits for the 1 million long-term unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits and were not aided by the legislation that we passed on January 8.

On January 8, we passed a bill that extended benefits to unemployed workers who were cut off from receiving their benefits on December 28. With the December 28th deadline, approximately 800,000 workers were cut off from receiving their benefits. We essentially gave them 13 weeks of extended benefits, but in doing so we neglected to provide additional benefits for a million Americans who lost their unemployment benefits-- first, their State benefits of 26 weeks, and then their extended Federal unemployment benefits.

In recent recessions, Congress always acted to respond to the plight of these unemployed Americans who are searching for work, trying to maintain their households, and trying to maintain their families. In the early 1990s, Congress extended benefits five different times--three of those times during the Presidency of President George Herbert Walker Bush.

In contrast to the 1990s, the situation is even greater today. At the end of December 2002, an estimated 2.2 million workers exhausted their Federal benefits; whereas, in the recession of the 1990s, approximately 1.4 million Americans had exhausted those benefits.

Where is this crisis affecting Americans? It is everywhere. It is estimated that of these 1 million jobless Americans, about 56,800 are from Texas; 44,000 are from Pennsylvania; 43,500 are from Ohio; 37,600 are from North Carolina; 53,000 are from Illinois; 20,000 are from Indiana; 27,000 are from Tennessee; 18,000 are from South Carolina; and 84,000 are from New York. And the list goes on and on.

This is not a rollcall to be proud of because it represents the fact that the economy is not working. These are not small numbers. We overlooked a lot of those Americans when we took partial action on January 8.

This is not just about numbers. This is about people.

I think there is an erroneous perception that somehow these people are not looking hard enough for work; that they are really the hard- core unemployed, transient workers; that somehow they just don't deserve our help. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I will share some stories that have appeared in the press about people who are struggling with this dilemma of unemployment. I think you will find these people are very similar to people in your neighborhoods, in your families. They are Americans who want to work but in this economy cannot find work.

And there is something else that is going on here, too. This economic dilemma has some characteristics of a cyclical unemployment cycle, but many economists believe there are structural issues at work. You see, this is the situation where, for the first time in recent memory, many of these unemployed Americans are highly skilled, highly educated, and highly motivated. Yet they cannot find work.

For example, Laura Carson of Easton, MA, lost her job in July of 2001. She was a human resources executive. She worked for approximately 17 years,

since she graduated from Suffolk University. She has applied for unemployment insurance. She exhausted her State benefits, and then she exhausted her extended benefits. She is still looking. She tried to get a job this holiday season in a retail shop, but she could not find work. She is still looking. Just to survive, she has gone ahead and refinanced her house and taken out a home equity loan. But that is only putting off the inevitable, as bills keep crashing in upon her.

These are the types of people we are trying to help: Susan Brown of Chappaqua, NY, lost her job as a consultant 18 months ago. She used to be a principal in a firm that specialized in Web design. She is one of the victims of this technological bubble that burst. Her company went belly-up in 2001.

This is a woman who has worked for 18 years since she got out of college. She worked through high school and put herself through college. This is exactly what we like to reward in America: hard work, discipline, and dedication. She got remarried over the summer and, ironically--but in this market, not surprisingly--her husband lost his job, also. She has had to dip into her 401(k) plan to make ends meet. She is still looking but still very frustrated about finding work. She said:

There are just no jobs. I can't even tell you how hard it

is.

And prior to her loss of employment, she was making $200,000 a year. This is an example of this new phenomenon where highly skilled, highly motivated, highly educated people just can't find comparable employment in this recession.

Jules Berman of Queens was laid off from his job. He worked for almost 30 years for a New York candy company. He filed for unemployment insurance in December 2001, and he has seen his benefits exhausted. He has never been out of work before in his entire work life.

What you are seeing, again, if you do the math: after 30 years, seeing middle-aged men and women, who are losing their jobs for the first time in their work history, who thought--as we all did, our contemporaries--if you worked hard, got a good education, got in with a good company and strived and struggled each day, you certainly could work until you retired on your pension and your Social Security. That is not the case. And now, at the age of 50, with mortgages, with children who are going to college, with health care bills and health care concerns, they are looking for a job.

That is the reality, and it is not just in the Northeast. Eric Strubble lives in Newcastle, CA. He was laid off from Hewlett-Packard-- another example of the huge downturn in technology companies that has taken place in the last few years. He has filled the gap with these unemployment benefits, but, as he said:

Obviously, if we had to live off it, there would be no way,

but it helps stretch things out a bit.

People don't get unemployment insurance because they don't want to work. It is a fraction of what you make in your salary check each week. The average unemployment benefit is about $256. It does not make up for your lost wages. It allows you, as Mr. Strubble says, to ``stretch things out a bit'' until you get on your feet.

Joyce Smith, 52, of Ardmore, TN, exhausted her $190-a-week benefit in August. She was a factory worker. As she said:

There's not much out there. They don't want people my age.

It's been a panic and a struggle, and you just go into a

depression.

Gary Hineman of Morgantown, PA, an unemployed steelworker who is 48 years old, has worked his whole life. In fact, he fibbed about his age at 16 just to get in the Steelworkers Union. He worked all his life, worked hard, and yet he is looking desperately for work. He said:

If I could speak to Members of Congress, I would tell them

to see how we live and how we feel. They want the economy to

pick up, but there are no jobs to pick it up with.

That is Mr. Hineman. His wife Michelle works as a grocery clerk. They are getting by on her $15-an-hour job.

Mr. Hineman said: ``That is the only thing I've got going for me.'' These are examples. These are the realities. These are the people we are trying to help and we should help: hard-working Americans. Yet we neglected 1 million of them.

Now, as the comments of these individuals suggest, this is a reflection of an economy that is not working. For the first time in 8 years, family incomes have fallen; poverty is increasing; families at all income levels are losing their health insurance; gross domestic product is growing, but it is not growing fast enough to make up the jobs that are necessary so these people can get back to work.

Indeed, the reality for most Americans today is, they live on their paychecks not their portfolios. When the paycheck stops, they are in very difficult circumstances. Our proposal is very simple: Let's give these individuals some more extended unemployment benefits so they can stretch it out a bit longer, find that job, make decisions that are going to get them back in the workforce.

Let me point out that our economy has lost over 2.2 million private payroll jobs since President Bush took office. The unemployment rate is currently 6 percent--nearly 2 percentage points higher than when President Bush took office. Long-term unemployment is very high, and that is the issue we are dealing with in this amendment: giving some support to these long-term unemployed.

By the way, I cannot think of a more efficient stimulus program than giving people looking for work unemployment benefits to tide them over until they find work. The money goes directly to them and directly into the economy. So from the standpoint of economic policy, that makes sense. Certainly from the standpoint of helping citizens of this country, it makes a great deal of sense.

The unemployment insurance trust fund has a $24 billion surplus. The funds are there. We should access them and allow these individuals additional benefits. We have to do more to help working Americans to make sure they make it through a very difficult, very challenging economic situation.

We have done it before, and I hope we can do it again. I hope we will do it again in this bill. This is an issue of great concern for our economy, but, as I have tried to illustrate with these individual stories, this is about our neighbors, people we live with back in our home States, the people we represent, the people who have worked all their lives; and all they want is a chance to keep their heads above water until they can find that job, as they look for that job day in and day out.

I think it is the least we can do for them. I hope we will do it. I am pleased and proud to be joined by Senator Durbin as a cosponsor. I know he will return a bit later to make his comments.

I hope we can, in fact, take up this amendment, adopt it on a strong bipartisan basis, and make sure that all long-term unemployed, not just those who were satisfied in the last legislation--but all the long-term unemployed--get a chance for extended benefits.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks Senator Reed I be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I have to preside at 4 o'clock. May I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak at 5 o'clock after I am finished presiding?

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the proposed amendment to stop the New Source Review reforms from moving forward, and in support of Senator Inhofe's second-degree amendment. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about this because there is a lot of confusion among our colleagues and throughout the country over what NSR New Source Review--means. The program is a policy that is in desperate need of reform. Reform is critical to public health and the environment, to our Nation's economy and energy supply, and to the safety of our country's workforce.

The program was created back in 1977. It simply requires new facilities to install the ``best demonstrated technology'' to control emissions. The program also requires older facilities to update their equipment to ``state of the art'' when they do major modifications. I underscore ``major modifications.''

When the NSR program was created 26 years ago, Congress believed that incorporating pollution controls whenever new facilities are built or when older ones are significantly modified was the most efficient way of controlling pollution. The EPA issued their first NSR regulation, a 20-page document, in 1980. This implementing regulation excluded from the definition of

modification ``routine maintenance, repair and replacement.'' Since then, the EPA has produced over 4,000 pages of guidance documents in an attempt to explain and reinterpret the regulations. I say ``attempt'' because in fact the guidance documents are very confusing.

It is important for the public and Members of this body to understand that the lawsuits blossoming all over the United States for NSR violations were brought about by an EPA guidance document, not new regulations, an EPA guidance document in 1998 which changed the definition of routine maintenance. This continual reinterpretation has led to confusion, misunderstanding by the EPA, the States, and the industries affected by the regulations.

This chart, which I have used at hearings before the Government Affairs and EPW Committees, shows why companies are reluctant to subject themselves to New Source Review permits. If you were a company and you were going to do routine maintenance and repair, would you ever submit yourself to this maze? I am sorry it is in such small print because my colleagues can't see it. But this is the kind of thing they are being required to do if they want to go forward with routine maintenance and repair.

Not only has the situation led to costly litigation, but to a climate of uncertainty, forcing companies to forgo needed maintenance and repair work until the regulatory policies are clarified. Ironically, this uncertainty has led companies to reduce their investments in cleaner, less polluting technologies for fear that the shifting regulatory environment would declare such improvements a violation.

While the goal of the Clean Air Act has been to make the air cleaner, the NSR program has at times worked against this goal and wound up having the opposite effect.

I want to clarify a very important point often misconstrued by the opponents of NSR reform. All major facilities are regulated by the Clean Air Act. No plants are exempt from the Act, and no plants are ``grandfathered.'' All facilities have permit levels that they must meet for their emissions. They must abide by ozone and particulate matter standards, what we refer to as maximum achievable control technology standards, the acid rain program, the NOX SIP Call, the regional haze program, and a range of other regulatory programs that apply to each industry or facility. Furthermore, states implement source-specific emission limits through state implementation plans that can be set at more stringent emissions levels if the states deem it necessary.

In fact, as this chart shows, the Clean Air Act has been extremely successful in reducing emissions of pollutants. Since the 1970s, emissions of all criteria pollutants--carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide--have been reduced by 29 percent. This is significant when you consider the fact that over the past 30 years, our population has increased by 38 percent, our Nation's energy consumption has increased by 45 percent, the number of miles our vehicles travel each year has increased by 143 percent, and our gross domestic product has increased by 160 percent.

While our country has grown, emissions have decreased. However, I strongly believe that more can and should be done.

I have worked tirelessly over my entire career to improve our nation's and Ohio's air quality. In the 1970s, as Mayor of Cleveland, I worked on this issue firsthand by operating a 57 megawatt municipally owned utility. I also spent considerable effort as Governor to get 28 of Ohio's counties into attainment for ozone. Through my efforts to institute an automobile emissions testing program and convince one of our major coal fired facilities to install a scrubber, all 88 of Ohio's counties met the air quality standard requirements of the Clean Air Act by the time I left office.

I have continued this work here in the Senate since 1999. As chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, I have been working to further reduce pollution from power plants through a multi-emissions strategy. Last year, we worked on this issue in the EPW Committee. Unfortunately, the majority moved ahead on a proposal that would have been unjustifiably devastating to our economy and very costly for consumers and businesses alike.

In the 108th Congress, I plan to work to craft a bipartisan multi- emissions strategy that makes real reductions possible right away. I urge my colleagues to lay politics aside and work with me to improve public health, protect our environment, provide better regulatory certainty, and ensure continued access to safe, reliable, and low-cost electricity.

Mr. President, the NSR program plays an important role in reducing power plant emissions. It also--this is something that is not well understood--applies to every stationary source in the country. When people talk about this, they think it is just utilities that are involved. Rather, we are talking about refineries, chemical plants, and manufacturing facilities. NSR applies to all of them, and all of them out there today are uncertain about what they should be doing and, as a result, are doing nothing.

The current confusion over NSR is actually contributing to polluting our air. When NSR is clarified, I am sure that many of these companies would move on with their programs. They would reduce emissions, and they would make their facilities more efficient.

It is imperative that the NSR program be reformed if we are to improve air quality because at present companies either can't or won't make the necessary changes to improve efficiency and the environment. Without NSR reform, multi-emissions legislation will not work.

We need to do everything possible to encourage new investments in more efficient equipment that produces fewer noxious emissions. That is why Senator Conrad and I, along with 24 of our colleagues, sent a bipartisan letter to Administrator Whitman in May calling on her to ``complete the [NSR] review and to undertake the necessary regulatory process in the near future to clarify and reform the NSR program.''

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Our letter was bipartisan, nine Democrats and 17 Republicans, all calling for reform. While I am sure all 26 of us would not necessarily agree on exactly what the reforms should ultimately look like, we did all agree that we ought to get moving with it. We are running out of time.

In our letter to Ms. Whitman we also stated:

We have heard of many situations in which confusion over

the NSR program is having a dampening effect on utilities'

willingness to perform energy efficiency and environmental

improvement projects.

Mr. President, I'd like to share just one of the examples that I am aware of. For refiners, I am aware of an incident in which tubes on a reboiler furnace failed, resulting in a fire which damaged the remaining tubes. New tubes were installed and the unit was back in production within two weeks. However, they were in violation of NSR due to the ``actual-to-potential'' emissions test. If NSR regulations were followed, the unit should have undergone the permit process, resulting in the refinery being out of commission for five to 18 months. I think my colleagues should remember that the next time a refinery closes and prices spike.

Mr. President, the 26 Senators who signed this letter are not the only ones who think that NSR has prohibited reductions in emissions. This is really important. In August 2001, the National Governors Association passed a unanimous resolution calling for NSR reform. Their resolution states ``New Source Review requirements should be reformed to achieve improvements that enhance the environment and increase energy production capacity, while encouraging energy efficiency, fuel diversity, and the use of renewable resources.''

Furthermore, according to the National Coal Council study, commissioned by the Clinton administration, if the EPA were to return to the pre-1998 NSR definitions, we could generate 40,000 new Megawatts of electricity from coal-fired facilities and reduce pollution at the same time.

The current NSR program threatens our energy supply due to both short-term and long-term reliability problems. According to the Department of Energy, electricity demand is projected to grow by 1.8 percent per year through 2020. At the same time, no new nuclear plants have been constructed since the 1970s and the number of new coal facilities has declined significantly since the 1980s. Our nation's use of coal will continue to increase, resulting in greater demand on our aging coal facilities. In order to meet the growing electricity demand, more frequent maintenance and repair work will be needed to keep these coal facilities on-line.

Another point that needs to be made, which is often overlooked in this debate, is that the costs of NSR are passed on to the ratepayers. Somehow people forget that the customer always pays. Too often, the environment and the ratepayer get lost in the constant duel between extremist environmental groups and recalcitrant companies.

Higher energy prices will have a more profound effect on low-income families and the elderly. The Department of Energy, as this chart shows, claims that those individuals or families making less than $10,000 per year will spend 29 percent of their income on energy costs, and those making between $10,000 and $24,000 a year will spend 13 percent of their income on energy costs.

The NSR program not only prevents the installation of more efficient and less polluting technologies, but it also interferes with safety improvements.

According to the Boilermakers Union, ``Maintenance is necessary to maintain worker safety. Electric generating facilities harness tremendous forces: superheater tubes exposed to flue gases over 2000 degrees; boilers under deteriorating conditions; and parts located in or around boilers subjected to both extreme heat and pressure.''

Failure to maintain and repair equipment creates a potential danger to the lives and safety of the men and women who work on these facilities, and they are not moving forward right now with many of these repairs.

Fortunately, the EPA has responded to the bipartisan and strong call for reform of the New Source Review program. On December 31, 2002 the EPA published a rule that included five reforms of the program. Some of my colleagues might not know that the final rule was actually proposed by the Clinton administration. Let me repeat: These reforms were proposed by the Clinton administration. They are bipartisan.

The reforms are the result of over 10 years of work by the EPA across three administrations and have involved over 130,000 written comments in the last year alone. The EPA has conducted a detailed environmental analysis of the rule and found that the reforms will have a net benefit to the environment, a net benefit. They are good for the environment. Again, I want to stress to my colleagues that Senator Inhofe's amendment will allow us to move forward and help the environment.

This morning my colleague from North Carolina proposed an amendment to delay the implementation of these reforms for 6 months until a study is completed to assess their impact. They have been studied for a long time. On the surface this sounds like a good idea. However, if this amendment passes, we will delay reforms that have been worked on for over 10 years and would make improvements in the environment and to public health today. An EPA analysis already found that the reforms will have a net benefit to the environment.

Furthermore, Mr. President, contrary to an argument put forth by critics of NSR reform, EPA has stated publicly that it deliberately wrote the rule so that current lawsuits would not be affected by the proposed NSR reforms.

It is my belief that if this amendment passes, it will also seriously harm the prospects of future reforms to the NSR program. For example, EPA has proposed a rule to provide a new definition for ``routine maintenance, repair, and replacement.'' The EPA did not offer specifics but asked for public comment on a range of options. This proposal is at the crux of the issue and is imperative. I believe this amendment would not only delay the current rule from being implemented, but it would also effectively delay other very important reforms to the program. We have to get on with it.

I join my colleague and friend, Senator Inhofe, today in the second- degree amendment he has proposed. This amendment would allow the reforms to be implemented while requiring the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate its impact. It allows the reforms to go forward to stop this state of limbo that exists. At present, nothing is happening. Companies will then be able to make efficiency improvements and reduce their emissions. At the same time, the Academy can study the impact of the reforms as they are being implemented.

Ending the confusion surrounding the NSR reforms will allow companies to make the investments that are necessary to both increase our energy supply and environmental protections. We can reduce pollution and become more energy-efficient. We need to provide both for continued economic development and protections for public health and the environment. To meet these needs, we must move enact substantive NSR reform.

I thank the administration for their work in developing this proposal and moving ahead with the Clinton era reforms. I urge them to continue these efforts. Support for these actions is strong and broad-based. The confusion about NSR regulations is pervasive throughout our Nation, from the regulated community to the regulators. It must be addressed-- and soon.

Mr. President, I sincerely urge my colleagues to support Senator Inhofe's second-degree amendment to Senator Edwards' amendment. The program is broken and desperately needs to be reformed. We cannot afford further delay.

Yes.

Again, I thank the Senator. I emphasize that 130,000 comments were made last year regarding those regulations that have been issued by the EPA. So it has been really vetted. People have had an opportunity to

participate in this. I support the Senator's suggestion that rather than ask for a study by the Academy, we delay that and let the rules be issued, and then let the Academy look at it. That is a much sounder, more commonsense approach to dealing with this problem.

I am more than happy to yield.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that the previous administration had been working on these rules. They started out during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration began looking at the recommendations from the previous administration. They subjected them to review by many organizations. By the way, these rules do not apply to utility companies. They have only proposed a rule in this regard. What I am saying to Senator Reid and others is that because the regulations have not been reformed, companies for several years have done nothing to move forward with installing controls that would reduce emissions or make their facilities more efficient. I think we have delayed long enough. It has been vetted.

If someone believes yet another review is necessary, it should be done after the reforms are implemented. Any additional review should be done after implementation so that we are dealing with reality and not speculation. This is very important. I think it is time for us to go forward with the reforms to allow facilities to do their routine maintenance and repair work. This will make their facilities more efficient, reduce their emissions and, in some cases, produce more energy.

Mr. President, we had a hearing in the EPW committee last year on the rules before they were publicized, and they were savaged because many people believed the issuance would interfere with current lawsuits. The EPA claims that the reforms do not interfere with pending lawsuits for violations under the guidance that was issued back in 1998.

Mr. President, if the minority leader will yield, I thought I would get to the floor at 2:15.

Mr. President, as many of you know, in March of 2001, Senator Breaux and I wrote the first congressional letter on the New Source Review Program to Vice President Cheney in his capacity at that time as chairman of the National Energy Policy Development Group. Our letter stated that, unless reformed ``EPA's flawed and confusing NSR policies will continue to interfere with our Nation's ability to meet our energy and fuel supply needs.''

At this point in my presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I publicly thank the administration for being responsive to the concerns of Senator Breaux and myself. I know it took real courage to pursue the NSR reforms. It took courage because the President knew that many people would misconstrue these reforms as a ``sneak attack on the environment'' in an attempt to score cheap political points and fundraise.

Despite the rhetoric we will hear today and have heard today about NSR reforms and the process of developing these reforms, make no mistake: President Bush's decision will result in a cleaner environment and greater energy security.

The Clinton administration developed draft proposals and accumulated over 130,000 pages of comments on NSR reform. In fact, on his last day at work on January 19, 2001, President Clinton's air chief with the EPA, Bob Perciasepe, wrote a letter, No. 1, outlining NSR reforms which are similar to the Bush administration's NSR reforms and which are almost identical and, No. 2, calling for the Bush administration to consider finalizing the reforms.

At this point in the presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I very much look forward to seeing the fruits of the Clinton and Bush administrations' labors on this issue.

From my tenure as chairman of the Senate's Clean Air Subcommittee, I knew that New Source Review was a major issue for the energy sector. In fact, I held the very first congressional hearings on New Source Review in February of 2000 in Ohio. I could not believe my own ears. We heard from companies that were trying to make environmentally friendly modifications to their facilities being stopped dead in their tracks by, ironically, the Clean Air Act.

I was also shocked to hear that it took 4,000 pages of guidance documents to explain 20 pages of regulations. That is 4,000 pages of guidance documents just to explain 20 pages of regulations.

Since then, my shock at the absurdity of the NSR Program has not worn off. We, as a nation, need to rethink the manner in which we approach regulations. We all need to keep an open mind during the debates on various regulatory reform initiatives. I am sick of continually hearing that these are ``sneak attacks on the environment.'' In fact, just the opposite is true. If we rethink regulation, we could find ourselves in a place where we can have far greater environmental protection and more reliable and diverse energy sources.

Congress and the executive branch must also do a better job of understanding how the various layers of regulations impact sectors of our economy. I normally have a chart which shows all of the different regulations that are going to be hitting the various regulated sectors--a chart that shows the refiners that are currently working at almost 100-percent capacity are going to be simultaneously hit with a number of regulations in the next few years. NSR will make it close to impossible for refiners to make these environmental upgrades. Now is the time to work together on these and other regulations to not only achieve the environmental goals but also ensure no disruption in fuel supply which would cause the price spikes that we know are inevitable.

Higher energy prices affect everyone. However, when the price of energy rises, that means the less fortunate in our society must make a decision between heating their home and keeping the lights on or paying for other essential needs.

During a recent EPW Committee hearing last year, Senator Voinovich's constituent, Tom Mullen, articulated this concern. Mr. Mullen stated that in a recent study--which is well known and very well expected--on Public Opinion on Poverty, it was reported that 23 percent of the people in America have difficulty paying for their utilities. That is one out of every four Americans.

I will not support policies, such as NSR, that will hurt the poor in Oklahoma and around the Nation. Additionally, the lower environmental performance resulting from the current NSR Program impacts Americans in every tax bracket. NSR reforms enjoy the support of a wide range of interests--from the State attorneys general to labor unions to business groups.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers in support of NSR reform.

Mr. President, the environmental community does not have to answer to the American people when energy prices go through the roof. But the President of the United States does, and we do, too. I think the President is doing the right thing, and we should support him for it.

So, in summary, this is one of the rare things that both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have proposed which enjoys support by virtually all the labor unions as well as the business organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations, and the American people who want lower cost energy.

Mr. President, I am offering a second-degree amendment to Senator Edwards' rider on the New Source Review. In his amendment, Senator Edwards asks the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the impacts of implementing the NSR reform package and to delay the reforms in the interim.

In our judgment, there is no reason for this delay. We have delayed already for 10 years. We have been living with this thing for 10 years. We need reforms now.

Therefore, I am offering a second-degree amendment to allow the NSR final package to move forward, but to allow the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study. When the NAS completes its study, the EPA can then benefit from its results. I suggest that the National Academy of Sciences will be getting their information from the EPA because they are the ones who have accumulated all the data to date, and there is no more data that is available. There is nothing to be lost by offering this as a second-degree amendment. You would have the benefit of the NAS study as well as moving along the time for implementation.

There is simply no reason to delay the implementation of the final NSR package. The Edwards amendment calls for a study before the final New Source Review rules go final. I guess the Senator from North Carolina has not read the administrative record on the regulations. If he had, he would see that the EPA conducted a thorough environmental analysis of the final NSR proposals.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to read from the EPA's own environmental analysis:

The overall effect of the final rule will be a net benefit

to the environment.

My second-degree amendment calls for a NAS study to look at the impacts of the regulation after implementation of the final rules while allowing the regulations to go forward, thus allowing cleaner and more efficient technologies to be installed in our Nation's manufacturing centers.

Delaying these regulations would delay projects to create safer workplaces. The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, a member of the AFL-CIO, has recently opined against the proposed delay in the final package on the New Source Review. I would like to read just a small part of their letter and then will have the rest of the letter printed in the Record. This letter is a current letter dated today from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. It says:

We have encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency to

clarify the program as soon as possible, and oppose efforts

in Congress to slow reform down. The efficiency and

competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our

workers hang in the balance. This is a jobs and safety issue

for millions of American workers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, some supporters of the Edwards rider in its current form suggest that delay is justified because State officials seek it. Nothing could be further from reality. Two years ago, a unanimous resolution of the National Governors Association was passed. It says:

New Source Review requirements should be reformed to

achieve improvements that enhance the environment and

increase energy production capacity, while encouraging energy

efficiency, fuel diversity and the use of renewable

resources.

The Nation's environmental commissioners passed a subsequent amendment, stating:

The Environmental Council of the States adopts the

provisions of the NGA [the National Governors' Association]

policy. The Environmental Council of the States encourages

the United States EPA to reform the New Source Review

Regulations into a workable regulation that is easily

understood and effectively implemented.

These positions reflect the true direction of the majority of States. I think there is a propensity in this body for us to think that wisdom in Washington is greater than that of the States. That is not true. So you have a unanimous resolution from the Governors as well as the Environmental Council of the States.

The bottom line is this: My second-degree amendment allows the EPA and the States to benefit from the wisdom of the National Academy of Sciences on the important issues of clean air policy. However, my amendment does not create potential dangers inherent in delaying the onset of the important and thoughtful administrative reforms of the NSR program.

So I offer a second-degree amendment to the Edwards first-degree amendment No. 67 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am glad to withhold.

Let me respond to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

First, this has nothing to do with tuna, dolphins, drilling, snowmobiles in the Tetons. The record of this President has been very good. We passed extensive brownfields legislation with the help of the Senator occupying the chair. My amendment included over 200,000 petroleum sites. The record has been good.

It is important, when you are talking about this issue, to talk about the Bush administration. This essentially came from the Clinton administration, not from the Bush administration. With the exception of a few technicalities which have been worked out to everyone's advantage, this is the Clinton administration's program.

Here is the statement made at the last day of the Clinton administration by Bob Perciasepe:

Over the last two years we have all worked hard to develop

improvements to the New Source Review program. As I have

discussed with you, I believe it is essential that this

program have greater incentives for companies to employ the

most effective emissions techniques voluntarily and give

greater flexibility when companies take these voluntary

actions.

And so then we had this study. Look at this study. It is 180 pages. The study comes to the conclusion that the overall effect of the final rule will be a net benefit to the environment. This is going to benefit the environment, not hurt it.

When the Senator from Nevada says, what do we say to senior citizens, I say what do we say to senior citizens when their energy costs go up, when they already have to decide whether to heat their homes or have food to eat.

We have studied this matter for 10 years. We don't need 6 more months.

However, we are willing to have the NAS do a study, and they will use the same data the EPA used in coming up with the conclusion that this is not harmful, but it is good for the environment and health.

I will be joining my friend from Nevada in asking for a recorded vote on this second-degree amendment at the appropriate time.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

First of all, I thank the Senator from Ohio for the time he has spent in setting out this issue. Not many people are aware of the fact that Senator Voinovich was the head of the National Governors Association Clean Air Committee and has been working on it for a long time.

I only add to his comments and ask him if he is in agreement that we have 180 pages here, and almost all of this was done during the Clinton administration. All the data that would be available for the NAS is found in the results that are very positive in this report. So I certainly hope this is an accommodating way for the Senator from North Carolina to say, yes, we want the input of the NAS; we don't want to wait 6 more months.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield?

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for yielding.

Let me first of all say, to clarify the understanding that I have in listening to his presentation, that his request would not necessarily be binding unless the President were to include this as something which he would interpret as an emergency; that is, the funding that is requested by the Senator. Is that correct?