Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the ``The SUV Business Tax Loophole Closure Act'' along with

Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton to close a loophole in tax law that some are inappropriately using to deduct a majority of the cost of the largest SUVs on the market.

To encourage small business growth, Congress has created a number of mechanisms for small business owners and the self-employed to be able to deduct a variety of capital expenses immediately. In order to keep people from abusing these deductions to buy passenger cars for personal use and call it a business expense, Congress capped the deduction for car purchases at $7,660 in the first year, and $4,900 in the second year after the purchase.

But to help farmers and small business owners that need pick-up trucks or vans for business purposes, Congress excluded from the car cap those vehicles that weigh more than 6,000 pounds. Vehicles larger than 6,000 pounds are eligible for the full capital expense--$25,000. This tax policy was created before the advent of SUVs, many of which weigh more than 6,000 pounds.

As a result, people who do not need a large vehicle for business purposes are buying the largest Hummer SUVs, Mercedes SUVs, BMW SUVs and other super-sized SUVs and deducting a significant portion of the cost from their taxes immediately. If they were to buy anything smaller than the largest of SUVs, then they would not get the larger tax deduction because the lower weight puts the SUV under the luxury car cap. This distorts the market, pushing up demand for the largest of all SUVs at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

To fix this problem, my legislation places the purchases of SUVs weighing more than 6,000 pounds under the same tax deduction cap placed on the purchase of cars. That would end the market distorting incentive that encourages small business people such as accountants, lawyers, and consultants to buy a Hummer when they do not need a Hummer for business purposes.

Let me give you an example. Karl Wizinsky, a health care consultant in Michigan, bought a $47,000 Ford Excursion earlier this year and was able to write off $32,000 of the purchase price as a business expense. He was not even thinking about buying a new car until he heard about the deduction. In the December 18, 2002 Detroit News article, he said ``We really did it, bought the SUV, because it is a pretty hefty deduction.'' Now, a health care consultant may need to carry medical samples around town but he certainly does not need a 6,000 pound, extra-large SUV to do it and we should not be subsidizing that purchase. The group ``Taxpayers for Common Sense'' estimates that the SUV tax loophole costs government between $840 million and $987 million for every 100,000 SUVs over 6,000 pounds sold to business.

I propose to fix the problem by including extra-large SUVs under the same deduction cap we have in place for cars. In order to ensure that farmers and small business owners can still get the tax credit to purchase trucks for hauling or vans for transporting products, I have carved out SUVs very carefully. The bill specifically allows the larger deduction for any vehicle which: No. 1. does not have the primary load carrying device or container attached; No. 2. has a seating capacity of more than 12 people; No. 3. is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the driver's seat; No. 4. is equipped with an open cargo area, for example a pick-up truck or box bed, of 72 inches in interior length or more; or No. 5. has an integral enclosure, fully enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device and having no body section protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading edge of the windshield. This will allow the larger deduction to continue to be taken for the purchase of vehicles that small businesses and farmers truly need, including pick-up trucks and cargo vans.

I know that Congress never intended for the SUV tax loophole to exist, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to close it.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Illinois I always appreciate his remarks both on the floor and when he is out meeting with people via the media. He puts his finger on a lot of important issues. He mentioned that I was going to speak about the environment. This afternoon, I will take on that issue. I will mention it this morning, but my idea this morning, in the few hours before the State of the Union, is to basically address the President of the United States from this Chamber in a way to urge him to address the anxiety of the American people because I think the state of the Union, if it can be summed up in one word, is anxious.

I want to go through why I think that is the case. So as we get ready to take part in a wonderful ritual where the Members of the Senate will gather in this Chamber--and I know the Chair, as a new Member, will experience this amazing feeling of patriotism and excitement as we gather here to make that march across the Capitol to join our colleagues in the House--we think very seriously about the state of our Union and what we hope the President will say.

In the spirit of great respect, I want to tell the President, through this short talk of mine today, what I am hearing from my constituents about the state of our Nation.

When I say ``Mr. President'' in my talk, it is directed at President Bush.

Mr. President Bush, I must tell you that the state of the Union today is anxious--anxious about the twin threats of war and terrorism, about the health of our economy and our environment; anxious about our children's education and our family's health care; anxious about our basic civil rights, including our right to privacy and the right to make personal decisions without Government interference.

Mr. President, the people are anxious and they are worried that you are leading us prematurely down a lonely path to war while ignoring other serious threats to peace and that you have lost your focus on terrorism.

As Senator Durbin said, the people have not heard a word about Osama bin Laden, whom you placed at the top of your terrorist list. We have not heard a word about him in months.

Many believe that you are heading down the wrong path on the economy; that you are leaving too many children behind; that you are sacrificing our environment at the altar of the special interests; and that you are failing to address the health care issue.

People worry that you are actively seeking to reverse the constitutionally protected right to privacy. Two examples of this are your attacks on the right to choose and your selection of Admiral Poindexter, who was convicted of lying to Congress, to lead the Total Information Awareness Program, collecting vast amounts of personal information and intelligence about ordinary American citizens.

I am very pleased there was an amendment which passed to essentially do away with that program, but we do not know what the House of Representatives will do in conference.

Mr. President, you have not stated at all that you are for getting rid of this agency which will know everything there is to know about any citizen they decide to follow around via their use of computers.

Here is the stark contrast to where we were a year ago, when the entire world stood with the President and with all the American people as we struggled to recover from the terrorist attacks and prevent their recurrence.

I saw Senator Biden on a talk show yesterday. He reminded us that a headline in a French newspaper said: We are all Americans. What a moment that was in history; the world was united behind us. Somehow we have lost that leadership. We need to get it back. Today America stands far too alone when it comes to foreign policy challenges.

Many thoughtful Californians of both political parties are saying U.N. inspectors must have more time to do their work. I hope the President will state that tonight. Three weeks ago, Colin Powell said the inspectors were gaining momentum. We also know we have yet to give the inspectors a lot of information we have about what has been going on in Iraq. Information is power. The inspectors need that information, first, to find out what happened to the weapons; second, so we can make a case that we do not have to deal with Saddam Hussein alone. I don't want to see us deal with Saddam Hussein alone. Could we beat him militarily? Absolutely. But what happens after when we are alone? What happens to sharing the costs of human life? We need our allies with us, and more than Great Britain.

Yes, Iraq must disarm. After all, Saddam Hussein said he would; he has to. He agreed to the resolutions. We have to keep in mind more arms were destroyed by the weapons inspectors in Iraq after the first Persian Gulf war than we destroyed by our bombs. That is a very important point reiterated by Madeleine Albright and by others. We have a great deal of information to give the inspectors. Let's give it to them. As long as Iraq is the focus of worldwide attention, as long as the inspectors are there, as long as we are having the no-fly zones patrolled by our planes and our allies in the north and the south, this man is boxed in. He cannot put a big toe outside of that country. He cannot do anything to harm us.

I believe, therefore, we have time to avoid the devastation of war and, once again, to build the case and keep the international community with us. I worry with this focus on Iraq that we have a foreign policy elsewhere in the world that is one of deliberate negligence. As a matter of fact, if I had to put a word or two to the Bush doctrine, it appears to be a policy of designed neglect, except for Iraq. We ignore the problems. We wait for the crisis to hit us. This modus operandi is causing serious trouble in North Korea because North Korea was ignored and now it has complicated a crisis that grew out of this neglect.

Closer to home in Latin America we see unrest. I ask, why do we see unrest? We have ignored the countries in our own hemisphere. We ignored Mexico. You promised there would be a new day. Yet we see the Foreign Minister of Mexico resigning out of frustration that he cannot even get a meeting with anyone in America who has any power. To have control over what goes on, that is foreign policy.

At home, people are anxious and worried. They are worried about terrorist attacks. I am introducing a bill that will enable us to have countermeasures placed on our commercial airlines so if someone held a shoulder-fired missile aimed at one of our commercial airlines, at a takeoff or landing period, when they are most vulnerable, there would be countermeasures on that plane. The President has been studying this issue. The President is spending tens of billions on missile defense for long-range intercontinental missiles. Perhaps it is up to $60 billion. A fraction of that would retrofit all of our planes.

And, by the way, when we take care of homeland security in such a manner, we create jobs, good-paying jobs, as well. Yet we will be prepared for what will come.

We have to fund homeland security. I know Senator Schumer is going to talk about that later today.

Let me finish by discussing the economy. We have watched this economy spiral downward for 2 years. We have seen this economy in a free fall. We have seen the stock market in a free fall. We have seen people in the country say: My God, I cannot retire. I was planning to retire. I will have to work 5 or 6 years because my retirement nest egg is essentially gone or so greatly reduced people cannot imagine.

The unemployment rate, which was 4.2 percent when President Bush took office, now stands at 6 percent nationwide. In my home State, it is at a 5-year high of 6.6 percent. This is bringing anxiety and angst to the people. More than 2.4 million private sector jobs have disappeared. Mortgage foreclosures have reached record levels. The stock market has lost trillions of dollars. We have gone from surpluses in our Federal budget to deficits as far as the eye can see. We are headed to a path of the worst economy in 50 long years.

In California last month alone the State lost 25,800 jobs. That is real people. What is your answer? Give tax breaks to the people who have jobs, who have earned millions of dollars, who are earning $1 million a year? You want to give them back $87,000, while my middle- class people are going to get back $87 a year. Where is that fair?

More than that, what kind of stimulus is that? Think about it. Someone who earns $1 million a year is going to take that $87,000-a- year tax cut. What are they going to do with it? They already have a new refrigerator in every home they own. They already have a new car or two parked at every home they own. They already have their vacations prepaid. What are they going to do? They are not going to do anything with that money that is going to stimulate the economy. The greatest secret of America is that our middle class is what makes the country great. It is our working families who will go out and spend that money in this economy, buying a new car. My friend from Michigan knows that is important. The millionaires have their cars. It is the middle-class working people, if they get a good deal on a car, who will go out, if they feel a little more economically secure, and purchase that car. More of the same of the trickle down to the rich, which never gets down to this country, will not get us out of the economic nightmare in which we find ourselves.

What the President wants to do to Medicare sends shivers up and down my

spine. My friend from Michigan will talk about health care. I hope she talks about the fact that the so-called Medicare reform is the end of having a chance to pick your own doctor. They are blackmailing Medicare patients into thinking if they stay in that plan where they can choose their own doctor, they will not get any prescription drugs. This President wants them all in the HMOs. I say to my friend, and to the President of the United States, if the HMOs did a good job, that would be one thing. If we could pass a Patients' Bill of Rights giving people rights in an HMO, giving them the treatment they need, giving them the preventive care they need, giving them the quality doctors they deserve, it would be a different story. But pushing people into HMOs before we have solved the HMO abuse problem, and then saying, well, if you do not do that you do not get your medicine, I hope people in this country will rise up against that plan.

Mr. President, you have another 9 hours. I hope you take that plan out of your speech. I hope you will take that tax cut plan out of your speech and rewrite it and give the tax cuts to the middle class and give the tax cuts to the working poor. That will stimulate this economy and make it a 1-year stimulus that doesn't drain the revenues of Government in the outyears so that we are in deficits for as far as the eye can see. Give those tax breaks to the small business people. They are going to spend it on plant equipment.

Mr. President, go back to your speech and take a look at what you are doing on education. Fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mr. President, if you continue with your ``leave no millionaire behind'' plan, you will have no money for your Leave No Child Behind plan. You can't have it both ways. You can't go to war, promise people education, promise them this, promise them that, promise them homeland security, and then give away all the money to the millionaires and have nothing to fulfill your promises.

People are on to this. They see it. You are doing it over and over again--with homeland security, not spending the money we need. The burden is falling on the cities and the States and the localities. I met with the mayors. Do you know what they said? Senator, when something goes wrong and, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack, someone is going to call 911. They are not going to call the White House, with all due respect. And they are not going to call me either.

I used to be in local government. I respect those people. We are hanging out local government to dry--the local police, the local fire departments, and the rest. That is wrong. It is all in the name of giving tax breaks to millionaires who don't need it and won't spend it. It is unfair and it is hurtful.

I will close, because my friend, Senator Stabenow, is here, on one of the topics I will speak more about later, and that is the state of our environment. If you look back at the progress we have made in the last 50 years and more, you will see a wonderful story emerging on the environment. You will see Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents who stood up and had great plans for this environment. Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton--they all made the environment stronger. Everywhere you turn, Mr. President, you are rolling back that progress.

So the state of the Union is anxious. They are anxious on all of these issues. Millions of Americans are waiting to feel less anxious. I hope, Mr. President, you will think about that before delivering your speech tonight.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, Senator Reid asked if I could extend this time until 3:30. I make that unanimous consent request.

All right. Madam President, I was here earlier to discuss the State of the Union as I saw it in California, and I reported that my constituents--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, young, and old-- are very anxious about where we are. They are anxious when they see that we had a surplus that, in 2 short years, has turned into a raging deficit. They are anxious that we are on the brink of war without a lot of our allies coming along. They are anxious about their pension plans. Many are having to work longer and harder because of what happened with the stock market losing trillions of dollars in value. They are anxious about seeing a Nation that has lost its way on foreign policy and domestic policy. They have asked me to address some of these issues in every way that I can.

This afternoon, I am here to address the issue of the environment. I am very proud that Senator Jeffords is here on the floor, because he is fighting very hard for clean air. He has introduced legislation--the Clean Power Act--to take on the challenges we face with 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming; 45 million tons of mercury, which poisons fish and endangers the health of children and pregnant women; 6 million tons of nitrogen oxide, which creates smog and causes asthma; and 13 million tons of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, premature death, and lung disease. He has authored a very good bill to cure this problem.

The administration is not supporting his bill. They have written their own bill called ``Clear Skies.'' Many I know are calling it ``dirty skies.'' If we would just leave the Clean Air Act intact, as it is, we would clean up the air far faster than this administration rollback. That is just one more example of a series of rollbacks that we are seeing done by this administration.

Frankly, the people of California, from both political parties, who cherish their environment, love to see the ocean, the forests, the lakes, and the rivers, and they cherish clean air. We have made so much progress and we want the Clean Water Act to stand intact. They are anxious, they are concerned, and they are puzzled as to why this administration is turning its back on Presidents--Republicans and Democrats, starting with Teddy Roosevelt who made the environment a nonpartisan issue, and President Eisenhower who said the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge should be left intact, and President Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, and President Clinton who did so many far-reaching things on the environment, protecting acres of land of roadless, beautiful areas, and used his executive pen to make sure that beautiful areas of our country are off limits to special interests because we believe when we got this land from God that it is our responsibility to preserve it and leave it in better condition than we found it.

We take this very seriously in California. This is not a partisan issue. I have people who voted for President Bush coming up to me and tugging at my sleeve: What is the matter with this administration?

Every Friday, late at night, when the press operations have shut down, they are making yet another rollback. The people in my State want me to fight against it, and I intend to do so.

Let's talk about this attack in specifics. One in every four Americans lives within 4 miles of a Superfund site. This chart has little dots that represent Superfund sites. Seventy million Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. Ten million of those are children who are at risk of cancer and other health problems.

My State happens to have the second highest number of sites after New Jersey, but as we can see, there are sites in almost every State in the Union. These Superfund sites are dangerous. They include chemicals such as arsenic, benzene, DDT, and brain-damaging toxins like lead and mercury.

In 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund law. During the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, an average of 87 final cleanups occurred each year. Let's look at what is happening under George Bush. Half of those sites are being cleaned up. Worse than that, who is now paying? Under Bill Clinton and under Republican Presidents before him, including George Bush's father, we taxed the polluters. The polluters paid to clean up their mess.

When I was growing up, my mother always said: Clean up your mess. She did not want to hear me say: It is somebody else's responsibility, mom. It is not mine.

Wrong. If you make a mess, you clean it up. Simple. That goes for polluters. That is why we set up the Superfund. The polluter pays was the rule of the day.

Now what is happening? This President does not support the Superfund fee on the biggest polluters. We see where the taxpayers used to pay only

18 percent of the cleanup costs, in this year are going to pay 50 to 54 percent of the cleanup costs. After this year, there will be almost nothing left in the Superfund, and this will be 100-percent paid for by taxpayers at a time when this President is depleting the money we already have by giving tax cuts to the people who earn over a million dollars a year, who do not need it.

So what is wrong with this picture? This President refuses to stand behind a bipartisan effort to reinstate the Superfund fee. I have introduced the bill with Senator Chafee, a Republican. This President will not support that and instead supports using general taxpayer funds to clean up Superfund sites.

Polluter pays is a principle that has worked. It has been supported by people of both parties and Presidents of both parties. It seems to me our people are in danger, and this administration is walking away from the Superfund.

I want to talk a little bit about clean water because this is very important. The Bush administration is working to remove Federal protection from many waters, including many creeks, streams, small ponds, and wetlands. These bodies of water have long been protected by the Clean Water Act. There was a rule published late in the day, and the effect of the rule is that 20 to 30 percent of our bodies of water could be exempted from the Clean Water Act. Why on earth would anyone want to do that when we see the results of the Federal Government's now saying that 20 to 30 percent of our water bodies no longer are covered by the Clean Water Act will be more polluted waterways? We already know the Nation's waters are getting dirtier, and almost half of our lakes, streams, rivers, and coastal estuaries are not safe for fishing, for swimming, or for boating.

How many people have taken their children on a vacation only to go down to a lake, go down to an ocean and find the sign, ``Polluted. You may not enter this body of water''?

We will kill off the remaining populations of 43 percent of endangered or threatened species that rely on wetlands for survival. We will deplete drinking water sources.

Mr. President, I ask about the time. My understanding from Senator Harry Reid was we had time until 3:15. He asked me if I could then extend that to 3:30. No one is on the floor from the other side. Because there is no one on the other side, I ask unanimous consent--and I think if I do not get that unanimous consent, it says to me that people on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, are not interested in allowing free speech to move forward. There is no one in the Chamber. I am happy to cease and desist when the next speaker comes. I ask unanimous consent that until another speaker comes that I be able to complete my remarks on the war on the environment that is going on each and every day, that is hurting our air, hurting our water, hurting our country.

I once more ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak until the next speaker comes to the floor.

That is what I have been doing.

I have been asked to take that time. That is what I was trying to convey to my friend. I ask for an additional 2 minutes because it took 2 minutes for the Chair to figure out that I actually could take Harry Reid's time. Would that be all right?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am very feisty today because I see an attack on our environment. I want to make the case, and I am going to try to do it in the remaining 7, 8, or 9 minutes I have.

If we move away from the Clean Water Act, what we will see is more polluted waters, more waterborne illness, higher drinking water filtration costs, more flooding, fish kills, and impaired sports fishing--that is why we have so many sports fishermen with us--fewer waterfowl and less recreational hunting. That is why we have so many recreational hunters with us as we try to resist this move to remove bodies of water from the Clean Water Act.

We will see reduced tourism, less spending on bird watching, ecotourism, and wildlife photography. I know my colleague understands the importance of tourism to our States. People come to see the beautiful wildlife, have a hunting or fishing trip, to take photographs, to show their children what wildlife really is. It is a hard time for those of us who believe so much that protecting the environment is a bipartisan issue.

I want to talk about something that is very near and dear to my heart because when I came to the House of Representatives in the 1980s, we learned that 100,000 dolphin were being killed every year because of destructive fishing practices, including Purse-Seining on dolphin. Many people now know what that is because Greenpeace called it to the world's attention. When tuna swim, they swim underneath the dolphin, and so unless one is really careful, they are going to throw their nets over the dolphin, and the dolphin are going to be killed or harmed. This practice was occurring in the 1980s. One hundred thousand dolphin were being killed each and every year because of dolphin deadly methods of fishing.

I have to say the young people of America turned the tide because kids would say to their parents: This is wrong to do to the dolphin, and if it means we are not going to take a tuna sandwich in our lunch, fine. We will boycott tuna until the tuna fishermen catch the tuna in a way that does not harm the dolphin.

Happily, the Congress passed the law I wrote. All the law said was we should create a label called a ``dolphin safe'' label, and if the tuna in that can was caught in a way that did not harm the dolphin, the manufacturer could, in fact, put that on the can.

What happened as a result of that legislation? By the way, it costs no money at all. It was just letting the consumer know the truth. The dolphin kill went down to 2,000 a year from 100,000 a year. That was because of the ``dolphin safe'' label of 1990.

The label was not that well respected. In about 1997, there were moves to weaken it. Basically, we held firm. Now the Commerce Department under George Bush has decided, forget all that, you can use the ``dolphin safe'' label even if you go back to purse seining on dolphin--as long as no one saw any dolphin die.

Scientific studies say that just does not work. When you harass the dolphin and you use the helicopters and you chase the dolphin and you torment the dolphin, we know what happens. They are not reproducing and they are not healthy. Yet this Bush administration wants to change the label. Now, fortunately, groups have gone to court and gotten the administration to guarantee that it will not change the meaning of ``dolphin safe'' until the court has examined this issue. For the moment, the ``dolphin safe'' label stands.

I put the administration on notice: If they persist in this, we will start another boycott. Americans do not agree with the administration putting free trade ahead of the dolphin. I can state that 75 percent of Americans want to make sure that label means something.

I have been in public life having first been elected in the 1970s, and I have always been a fighter for a clean and healthy environment. In all the years I have been in office, I have never seen such an attack on the environment. I have a list of every single attack on the environment this administration has made. It is published. We did it in chart form. We have four charts. Each shows repeals or rollbacks of an environmental law or regulation. It can be found on the NRDC Web site. If I were to have it on a piece of paper, it would roll out 32 feet.

Two hundred rules and regulations have been rolled back by this administration against the will of the American people, many of them on Friday afternoon. I am here to say on behalf of

many on this side of the aisle--and some on the other--we believe protecting the environment is an American value.

It is not a Democratic value or a Republican value, it is an American value. We cherish our God-given environment. We cherish our forests, our streams, our lakes, our oceans. We believe it is important we keep the air clean, the water clean.

We will continue to come to the floor and make the case that this is the most anti-environmental administration in recent history. It is amazing when we compare contributions of a Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, Richard Nixon, a Republican President, George Bush 1--who, by the way, said we should test poor children for lead in their blood. That is important to find out if they are sick or healthy. If they have lead in their blood, we should take action. This President tried to repeal that rule until we called him on it and pointed out it costs $13 a child and he stopped it. He tried to say we should not try to take arsenic out of water. We called him on it.

Mr. President, the state of the Union is anxious--anxious about the economy, it is anxious about jobs. It is anxious about a number of things: The possibility of war; it is anxious about a foreign policy that is in totally different directions where one country has inspections going on and we don't trust the leader of that country, we are ready to go against him, and another country has nuclear weapons and we are going to resolve that diplomatically. The country is anxious. They are anxious about the state of their environment. They do not want to have another Friday come and find out their rules for clean air, clean water, beautiful forests, are under attack.

I am here to say to the President: I know you are doing the last- minute rewriting of your speech. Think about what we are saying today. Democrats have come here in good faith to point out their differences. Reach out to us. Have a plan for the economy that is going to work. Say you will follow in the bipartisan traditions of environmental protection. Work with us on a foreign policy that is consistent and does not wait until a crisis hits but actually is proactive. Work with us on prescription drugs. Work with us so that people can get health insurance. We are ready, we are willing, and able to work with you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Hammer, a member of my California staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during my morning business speech.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank the Senator from New Jersey and say how wonderful it is, for anyone who cares about the environment and of cleaning up the environment, to have him back.

This is a very important amendment. Superfund sites are all over the country in almost every single State. They hurt our people. They are dangerous to our children. They have to be cleaned up.

The Senator is right. Polluter pays is the way we ought to go with these funds. So I just wanted to rise to thank my friend.

Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment to eliminate a dangerous anti-environmental rider that was slipped into this bill. I am not going to offer that amendment today because I believe the best strategy is to strip it in conference.

However, I want to take just a couple of minutes to let my colleagues know about this rider and to explain the bad precedent we would be setting.

In the National Forest Management Act, Congress requires a review of roadless areas for possible designation as wilderness areas. Under the National Environmental Protection Act we also require that this process involve the public and the right to appeal those decisions.

In 1997 a management plan for the Tongass National Forest was proposed that did not adequately address the question of wilderness designations. In response, a federal district court in Alaska ordered the Forest Service to complete a supplemental evaluation of possible wilderness areas. The Draft was released in May of 2002, with 8 alternatives. The administration's preferred alternative was no additional wilderness areas. A final recommendation is due to be released in February. At that point, the public has the opportunity to appeal the agency's decisions through the administrative process, and if necessary to make use of the courts.

Section 329 of the Interior Appropriations section of this bill would eliminate judicial and public oversight of U.S. Forest Service wilderness recommendations in the Tongass National Forest. In doing so, it waives two key environmental laws--laws that protect the right of the public to be involved in decision-making--the National Environmental Protection Act and the National Forest Management Act. This language will prevent the public, the states and the localities of their right to participate in the decision-making process.

Even more egregious, section 329 prohibits any judicial review or appeal of a decision on the Tongass Land Management Plan--a decision that has not even been made. So, before we know what the decision is, this section says there can be no more public input and no judicial review. This is a very bad precedent.

Judicial and public oversight are an intrinsic part of the process of environmental decision-making. In fact, the laws that govern management of our public lands are built on these principles of judicial and public oversight. These are our public lands, and we all have a right to take part in deciding how they are managed, how they are protected, and how they are exploited. Stripping away the ability of the American people to take part in the process is contrary to the spirit of our laws.

One hundred years ago, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt established the Tongass National Forest in Alaska with the support of the Alaskan people. For the last hundred years we have managed the Tongass in concert with the wishes of the public because we have had public participation.

This rider ignores history, it ignores our environmental laws and it creates dangerous precedent.

It is dangerous because it is a back door attempt to silence the public. It is dangerous because it is a back door attempt to override our laws, laws passed by this Congress after extensive debate. It is dangerous because it is a backdoor attempt to eliminate the normal checks and balances that are inherent in our system. And it is a dangerous thing for those of us who have pristine lands in our states.

Mr. President, I will vote against the omnibus appropriations bill.

I agree that it is important to complete work on the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills. But, while it is important to pass a bill, that does not mean we should pass this bill.

Last year, the Democratic-led Appropriations Committee completed its work on all 13 appropriations bills. The new Republican majority took those bills and had one mission: cut, cut, cut.

The FBI was cut $388 million, eliminating over 1000 FBI agents and surveillance aircraft used to respond to terrorist attacks.

The Food Safety Inspection Service was cut $28 million, eliminating over 600 food safety inspectors.

The National Institutes of Health was cut $809 million, reducing the budget for biodefense by 46 percent and abandoning the plan to double the health research budget over five years--a goal that I worked to establish when I was a member of the Senate Budget Committee.

The Veterans Administration was cut $692 million, meaning that over 200,000 veterans will go without medical services and another 200,000 will remain on the waiting list for care.

Head Start was cut over $395 million, depriving over 21,000 children of early education.

And the funding for After-School programs--the provision of the No Child Left Behind Act that I authored with Senator Ensign--was cut $90 million, meaning that 130,000 additional kids will not be able to participate in after-school programs and will be left alone on the streets after school gets out.

These cuts are not acceptable. Yes, we need to pass the appropriations bills, but not this way. We should go back to the drawing board and do it right.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could have a large impact on reducing gun violence in this country.

Last fall, two snipers terrorized the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, killing ten victims and wounding others including children. Among the weapons used by the snipers was a high powered military-style assault rifle known as a Bushmaster XM15. Following the arrest of sniper suspects John Mohammed and John Lee Malvo, this weapon was linked to killings in Maryland, Virginia,Louisiana, and Alabama.

Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms traced the Bushmaster weapon to a Tacoma, Washington gun dealership, the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. Investigators even found the empty box in which the weapon was shipped.

But What the agents did not find was any record of the sale of the weapon because the gun dealer did not keep adequate records. If the gun was bought from Bull's Eye, we do not know when because there is no record of the Sale. There is no record of a gun application or a background check for John Mohammed. Had a background check been carried out, John Mohammed would not have obtained the weapon because a domestic violence restraining order had been field against him.

What is the weapon was stolen? If the owner of Bull's Eye had kept proper records and followed Federal law, he would have reported the weapon missing or stolen when it disappeared from the store. The knowledge that a Bushmaster XM15 was missing from a Tacoma area weapons store could have greatly aided investigators looking into the case.

The sloppy recordkeeping for this particular weapon was not an isolated case. it has been learned that inspectors had uncovered record-keeping violations in audits at Bull's Eye in 1998, 2000 and 2001. A total of 160 missing guns could not be accounted for in the 2000 audit.

This type of shoddy recordkeeping is dangerous. A small percentage of licensed dealers are responsible for a disproportionate number of crime guns. Specifically, 1.2 percent of all licensed gun dealers are responsible for the original sale of 57 percent of all firearms used in crimes, according to data from the ATF.

Gun dealers are not being punished when they ignore Federal recordkeeping laws. Why? Because in 1986, the National Rifle Association pushed a law through Congress that significantly weakened penalties for poor recordkeeping reducing maximum jail time for five years to one year. This meant that the crime was reduced from

a felony to a misdemeanor. With this change, the undermanned and underfunded Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Federal prosecutors simply could not afford to bring cases against gun dealers for misdemeanor violations.

It is time we restore record keeping violations to a felony and that is what my bill does. It is not a new gun law. It is merely making the penalties tougher for violations for existing law. Regardless of whether you support or oppose additional gun laws, we all agree that we need strong enforcement of existing laws. My bill would make enforcement easier and tougher. I hope my colleagues will support this common-sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from the Violence Policy Center be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could have a large impact on reducing gun violence in this country.

Last fall, two snipers terrorized the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, killing ten victims and wounding others including children. Among the weapons used by the snipers was a high powered military-style assault rifle known as a Bushmaster XM15. Following the arrest of sniper suspects John Mohammed and John Lee Malvo, this weapon was linked to killings in Maryland, Virginia,Louisiana, and Alabama.

Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms traced the Bushmaster weapon to a Tacoma, Washington gun dealership, the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. Investigators even found the empty box in which the weapon was shipped.

But What the agents did not find was any record of the sale of the weapon because the gun dealer did not keep adequate records. If the gun was bought from Bull's Eye, we do not know when because there is no record of the Sale. There is no record of a gun application or a background check for John Mohammed. Had a background check been carried out, John Mohammed would not have obtained the weapon because a domestic violence restraining order had been field against him.

What is the weapon was stolen? If the owner of Bull's Eye had kept proper records and followed Federal law, he would have reported the weapon missing or stolen when it disappeared from the store. The knowledge that a Bushmaster XM15 was missing from a Tacoma area weapons store could have greatly aided investigators looking into the case.

The sloppy recordkeeping for this particular weapon was not an isolated case. it has been learned that inspectors had uncovered record-keeping violations in audits at Bull's Eye in 1998, 2000 and 2001. A total of 160 missing guns could not be accounted for in the 2000 audit.

This type of shoddy recordkeeping is dangerous. A small percentage of licensed dealers are responsible for a disproportionate number of crime guns. Specifically, 1.2 percent of all licensed gun dealers are responsible for the original sale of 57 percent of all firearms used in crimes, according to data from the ATF.

Gun dealers are not being punished when they ignore Federal recordkeeping laws. Why? Because in 1986, the National Rifle Association pushed a law through Congress that significantly weakened penalties for poor recordkeeping reducing maximum jail time for five years to one year. This meant that the crime was reduced from

a felony to a misdemeanor. With this change, the undermanned and underfunded Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Federal prosecutors simply could not afford to bring cases against gun dealers for misdemeanor violations.

It is time we restore record keeping violations to a felony and that is what my bill does. It is not a new gun law. It is merely making the penalties tougher for violations for existing law. Regardless of whether you support or oppose additional gun laws, we all agree that we need strong enforcement of existing laws. My bill would make enforcement easier and tougher. I hope my colleagues will support this common-sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from the Violence Policy Center be printed in the Record.

Reserving the right to object.

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Bill Rosendahl, who has just marked his 15th anniversary of producing a variety of shows for Adelphia Communications. I would like to take a few moments to recognize Bill's many successes.

I have been a guest on Bill's shows many times. Recently I appeared on his ``One-on-One'' interview program and enjoyed a discussion with Bill ranging from the possible war in Iraq to our Nation's environment and energy policies. Bill is extremely knowledgeable about issues facing our Nation and world. His questions are intelligent, insightful, and penetrating.

Since 1987, Bill has produced 2,600 shows. For 15 years, viewers have tuned in to watch interviews with leaders including former Vice President Al Gore, my colleague Senator Dianne Feinstein, California Governor Gray Davis, Prince El Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan, and former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak.

In addition to his role at Adelphia, Bill serves as Chairman of the California Cable Telecommunications Association, Chairman of the California Commission on Tax Policy in the New Economy, and on boards of the California Channel and Cable Positive.

Prior to his career in the cable industry, Bill Rosendahl was a White House appointee to the State Department as Chief of Operations for the U.S. Trade and Development Program and an associate in philanthropic work for John D. Rockefeller III. He has been involved in many presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial campaigns. Bill has also traveled to more than 50 countries throughout the world.

It is clear that Bill Rosendahl deserves our warmest wishes on this special occasion. Because of Bill's work, Californians are more informed about issues facing our State, Nation and world. He provides a forum for an engaging exchange of ideas, perspectives and outlooks on the future. I am certain that the next 15 years will be just as exciting as the first.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Early Education Act. This bill will enable millions of children to be prepared when they begin their academic careers.

In 1989, the Nation's governors established a goal that all children would have access to high quality prekindergarten programs by the year 2000. It is now the year 2003, and this goal is far from being met.

Of the nearly 8 million 3- and 4-year-olds that could be in early education, fewer than half are enrolled in an early education program.

The result is that too many children come to school ill-prepared to learn. They lack language skills, social skills, and motivation. Almost all experts now agree that an early education experience is one of the most effective strategies for improving later school performance.

Researchers have discovered that children have a learning capacity that can and should be developed at a much earlier age than was previously thought. The National Research Council reported that prekindergarten educational opportunities are necessary if children are going to develop the language and literacy skills needed to read.

Furthermore, studies have shown that children who participate in prekindergarten programs are less likely to be held back a grade, show greater learning retention and initiative, have better social skills, are more enthusiastic about school, and are more likely to have good attendance records.

For every dollar invested in early education, about 7 dollars are saved in later costs.

My bill, the Early Education Act, would create a demonstration project in at least 10 States that want to provide one year of prekindergarten early education in the public schools. There is a 50 percent matching requirement, and the $300 million authorized under this bill would be used by States to supplement--not supplant--other Federal, State or local funds.

Our children need a solid foundation that builds on current education system by providing them with early learning skills. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Byrd's amendment to increase funding for homeland security.

A little over a year ago, we experienced the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. As a result, we began to examine where our country had security weaknesses and work to prevent another attack. Unfortunately, the appropriations bill brought forward by the Republicans does not fund homeland security to the level that is needed, which is I why I support Senator Byrd's amendment.

Since the September 11 attacks, the State of California and its cities and counties have spent almost $600 million on homeland security, on emergency operations and response, on protecting powerplants and water supplies, on fire and emergency medical services.

Our States and cities and counties need our help. The Federal Government cannot abdicate its responsibility. Yet last year, after Congress passed $5 billion in funding to improve homeland security at the national, State, and local levels, President Bush refused to spend that money. It is still needed.

Let me mention just a few things the Byrd amendment does.

It increases funds for port security by $585 million. Last year, I was a member of the Port Security Conference Committee. We ended up with a good bill to improve security at our Nation's ports. But, there was no way to pay for it, despite my efforts and the efforts of Chairman Hollings. To get the money to our ports, we need to rely on the appropriations bill, so the additional funding in the Byrd amendment is crucial.

For over a year now, I have been calling for the Federal Government to protect first responders--police, firefighters, emergency personnel, nurses, and doctors--by immunizing them against smallpox. If terrorists were able to unleash smallpox in the United States, these people would risk their lives to save us and protect us. We need to protect them now. The Byrd amendment provides $850 million to immunize first responders against the smallpox virus.

The amendment would also increase funding for the Coast Guard for patrol boats by $40 million. The Coast Guard has many important missions including homeland security, drug security, and environmental work. After September 11, Coast Guard resources needed to be shifted. We now need to provide the Coast Guard with the necessary patrol boats to protect our coastline and ports as well as undertake its other missions.

The amendment includes $200 million for airports for the installation of the baggage screening machines. Screening of all baggage was required as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which became law in November 2001. Estimates for the cost of installing these machines are, at a minimum, $2 billion. Los Angeles International Airport estimates that it will spend $135 million, San Francisco $65 million, and Oakland $16 million. So I support the $200 million that Senator Byrd proposes. This is only a downpayment.

Congress has also required that cockpit doors be reinforced. But the airlines, for a variety of reasons, are in a difficult financial situation. Senator Byrd's amendment would provide $100 million to strengthen the cockpit doors. Let's not let another terrorist gain control of an airplane.

Every day millions of people across the Nation take public transit to work. We need to ensure that these people are protected from a terrorist attack. Senator Byrd's amendment does just that by providing $300,000 in grants to public transit agencies.

One of the problems in the aftermath of the September 11 attack was that first responders often could not communicate with each other. This amendment provides $150 million to first responders in our local communities in order to improve communications. That way, if there is another attack, and we all hope there will not be, we can rescue and save as many people as possible.

The Byrd amendment also increases funding for border security, for food safety, and for the FBI.

The Byrd amendment is vital for our nation's security for our homeland security, for the security of our cities and towns. I urge all Senators to vote for it to ensure that we can prevent more terrorist attacks.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill that addresses a critical gap that now exists in the funding for the clean- up of the Nation's most toxic waste sites. The Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act restores fees on oil, chemical and other industries to ensure that the Superfund Trust Fund, is solvent and that polluters, not American taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up sites that pose a threat to the health and safety of our communities.

I am pleased to be reintroducing this bill with Senator Chafee. In the 107th Congress, we worked together on a number of issues as the Chair and Ranking Member of the Superfund Subcommittee of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. I look forward to continuing that relationship.

The threats posed by Superfund sites affect communities in every corner of the country. One in every four Americans lives within four miles of a Superfund site. That's 70 million Americans and that includes 10 million children who are at risk of cancer and other health problems.

My State of California has the second highest number of Superfund sites in the country after New Jersey. And more that 40 percent of Californians live within four miles of a Superfund site.

Anyone who lives anywhere near a Superfund site knows about the terrible damage these industrial sites do to the community. Parents worry if their kids are safe when they find out there is a toxic mess down the street; real estate values go down the drain; and major challenges must be overcome to get the responsible parties to own up to their responsibility.

Fortunately, after Love Canal in 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund law to address the serious threat posed by these sites. And this law worked. Great progress was being made. Since the creation of this program, over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four years of the Clinton administration, an average of 87 final cleanups occurred each year.

Unfortunately, this program has seen a sharp decline since the start of the Bush administration. The pace of cleanups has slowed to a crawl. Instead of 87 National Priority List sites a year, less than half of that are now being cleaned up. In 2002, only 42 sites were cleaned up.

At the same time, the heart of the Superfund law is under attack: the principle that polluters must pay for cleanups. And that is the issue that my bill will address.

The Superfund Trust Fund, which includes funds from Superfund fees previously paid by oil, chemical, and other industries, is nearly gone. It will be depleted by 2004. These fees are not large in scope. For example, for every barrel of oil it would only cost 9.7 cents. Manufacturers would only pay $4.45 for every ton of arsenic or mercury they produce. In addition, corporations that have over $2 million in taxable income under the alternative minimum tax would be required to pay only 0.12 percent on taxable income above $2 million dollars. That means that a company that has a taxable income of $2,010,000 would pay only $12.

These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small price to pay for a healthy, safe environment.

Unfortunately, the polluter's fee expired in 1995. President Clinton repeatedly tried to get it reinstated. President Bush has refused to do so in his past budgets, and indications are that he will not do so in the future. This means that a greater and greater share of the cost of Superfund cleanups will be borne by taxpayers rather than polluters.

In fact, the general taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the Superfund in 1995. The figure is rising and American taxpayers will pay 54 percent of the Superfund budget by 2003.

This is unacceptable. That is why we are introducing the Toxic Clean- up

Polluter Pays Renewal Act. The principle of ``polluter pays'' must be protected, and the Superfund fees must be reinstated.

Polluter pays is fair. Polluter pays works. And polluter pays must continue. To shift the burden to all taxpayers is wrong, and we will fight this Administration's attempt to turn it back on the health of the American people.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill that addresses a critical gap that now exists in the funding for the clean- up of the Nation's most toxic waste sites. The Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act restores fees on oil, chemical and other industries to ensure that the Superfund Trust Fund, is solvent and that polluters, not American taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up sites that pose a threat to the health and safety of our communities.

I am pleased to be reintroducing this bill with Senator Chafee. In the 107th Congress, we worked together on a number of issues as the Chair and Ranking Member of the Superfund Subcommittee of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. I look forward to continuing that relationship.

The threats posed by Superfund sites affect communities in every corner of the country. One in every four Americans lives within four miles of a Superfund site. That's 70 million Americans and that includes 10 million children who are at risk of cancer and other health problems.

My State of California has the second highest number of Superfund sites in the country after New Jersey. And more that 40 percent of Californians live within four miles of a Superfund site.

Anyone who lives anywhere near a Superfund site knows about the terrible damage these industrial sites do to the community. Parents worry if their kids are safe when they find out there is a toxic mess down the street; real estate values go down the drain; and major challenges must be overcome to get the responsible parties to own up to their responsibility.

Fortunately, after Love Canal in 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund law to address the serious threat posed by these sites. And this law worked. Great progress was being made. Since the creation of this program, over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four years of the Clinton administration, an average of 87 final cleanups occurred each year.

Unfortunately, this program has seen a sharp decline since the start of the Bush administration. The pace of cleanups has slowed to a crawl. Instead of 87 National Priority List sites a year, less than half of that are now being cleaned up. In 2002, only 42 sites were cleaned up.

At the same time, the heart of the Superfund law is under attack: the principle that polluters must pay for cleanups. And that is the issue that my bill will address.

The Superfund Trust Fund, which includes funds from Superfund fees previously paid by oil, chemical, and other industries, is nearly gone. It will be depleted by 2004. These fees are not large in scope. For example, for every barrel of oil it would only cost 9.7 cents. Manufacturers would only pay $4.45 for every ton of arsenic or mercury they produce. In addition, corporations that have over $2 million in taxable income under the alternative minimum tax would be required to pay only 0.12 percent on taxable income above $2 million dollars. That means that a company that has a taxable income of $2,010,000 would pay only $12.

These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small price to pay for a healthy, safe environment.

Unfortunately, the polluter's fee expired in 1995. President Clinton repeatedly tried to get it reinstated. President Bush has refused to do so in his past budgets, and indications are that he will not do so in the future. This means that a greater and greater share of the cost of Superfund cleanups will be borne by taxpayers rather than polluters.

In fact, the general taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the Superfund in 1995. The figure is rising and American taxpayers will pay 54 percent of the Superfund budget by 2003.

This is unacceptable. That is why we are introducing the Toxic Clean- up

Polluter Pays Renewal Act. The principle of ``polluter pays'' must be protected, and the Superfund fees must be reinstated.

Polluter pays is fair. Polluter pays works. And polluter pays must continue. To shift the burden to all taxpayers is wrong, and we will fight this Administration's attempt to turn it back on the health of the American people.