Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in accordance with Rule XXVI.2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised November 1999, be printed in the Congressional Record for the 108th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will allow States to finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste that is flowing into States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia and many others.

My bill, ``the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act,'' gives State and local governments the tools they need to limit garbage imports from other States and manage their own waste within their own States.

Ohio receives more than 1.5 million tons of municipal solid waste annually from other States and this number has been increasing regularly. In fact, estimates for 2001 indicate that Ohio imported almost 2 million tons of municipal solid waste, which is almost 600,000 more tons of waste than Ohio imported in 1997. While I am pleased that these shipments have been reduced since our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I believe it is still entirely too high.

Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, communities in other States have simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to be landfilled in States like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop.

Many State and local governments in importing States have worked hard to develop strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of-state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill operators and agreements with other States. We saw limited relief. Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise significantly, particularly in light of the closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have prevented States from enacting laws to protect our natural resources from being utilized as landfill space. What has emerged is an unnatural pattern where Ohio and other States--both importing and exporting--have tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at every turn.

Quite frankly, State and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a specific delegation of authority from Congress, States that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill space when it is being used for other States' trash. Our citizens already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of- state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses.

Ohio and many other States have taken comprehensive steps to protect our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal from other States has limited the ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I do not believe the Commerce Clause requires us to service other States at the expense of our own citizens' efforts.

A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor Bayh, now Senator Bayh, of Indiana, Governor Engler of Michigan and Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon, of Pennsylvania--to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow control legislation.

In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked by Congress to reach an agreement with Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our States quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey-- the second largest exporting State--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill.

The bill that I am introducing today reflects the agreement that my State, along with Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania, reached with then-Governor Whitman.

For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for States to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a State to impose a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. Or, a State could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility.

These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other States that new facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving out-of-state waste. For instance, in 1996, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day--approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is not enough need for the facility in the State and they need to ensure a steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible.

In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators could not receive trash from other States until local governments approve its receipt. States could also freeze their out-of-state waste at 1993 levels, while some States would be able to reduce these levels to 65 percent by the year 2008. This bill also allows States to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 percent in 2014 at the earliest.

States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide States with the funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs.

Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of- state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, I am not asking for outright authority for States to prohibit all out-of-state waste, nor am I seeking to prohibit

waste from any one State. I am merely asking for reasonable tools that will enable State and local governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit unreasonable waste imports from other States. Such measures would give substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around each States' needs.

I believe the time is right to consider and pass an effective interstate waste bill. The bill I am introducing today is a consensus of importing and exporting States--States that have willingly come forward to offer a reasonable solution.

Congress must act this year to give citizens in Ohio and other affected States the relief they need from the truckloads of waste that daily pass through their communities. We have waited too long for a solution. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East better manage the trash they generate.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will allow States to finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste that is flowing into States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia and many others.

My bill, ``the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act,'' gives State and local governments the tools they need to limit garbage imports from other States and manage their own waste within their own States.

Ohio receives more than 1.5 million tons of municipal solid waste annually from other States and this number has been increasing regularly. In fact, estimates for 2001 indicate that Ohio imported almost 2 million tons of municipal solid waste, which is almost 600,000 more tons of waste than Ohio imported in 1997. While I am pleased that these shipments have been reduced since our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I believe it is still entirely too high.

Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, communities in other States have simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to be landfilled in States like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop.

Many State and local governments in importing States have worked hard to develop strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of-state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill operators and agreements with other States. We saw limited relief. Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise significantly, particularly in light of the closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have prevented States from enacting laws to protect our natural resources from being utilized as landfill space. What has emerged is an unnatural pattern where Ohio and other States--both importing and exporting--have tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at every turn.

Quite frankly, State and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a specific delegation of authority from Congress, States that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill space when it is being used for other States' trash. Our citizens already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of- state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses.

Ohio and many other States have taken comprehensive steps to protect our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal from other States has limited the ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I do not believe the Commerce Clause requires us to service other States at the expense of our own citizens' efforts.

A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor Bayh, now Senator Bayh, of Indiana, Governor Engler of Michigan and Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon, of Pennsylvania--to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow control legislation.

In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked by Congress to reach an agreement with Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our States quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey-- the second largest exporting State--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill.

The bill that I am introducing today reflects the agreement that my State, along with Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania, reached with then-Governor Whitman.

For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for States to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a State to impose a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. Or, a State could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility.

These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other States that new facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving out-of-state waste. For instance, in 1996, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day--approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is not enough need for the facility in the State and they need to ensure a steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible.

In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators could not receive trash from other States until local governments approve its receipt. States could also freeze their out-of-state waste at 1993 levels, while some States would be able to reduce these levels to 65 percent by the year 2008. This bill also allows States to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 percent in 2014 at the earliest.

States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide States with the funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs.

Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of- state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, I am not asking for outright authority for States to prohibit all out-of-state waste, nor am I seeking to prohibit

waste from any one State. I am merely asking for reasonable tools that will enable State and local governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit unreasonable waste imports from other States. Such measures would give substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around each States' needs.

I believe the time is right to consider and pass an effective interstate waste bill. The bill I am introducing today is a consensus of importing and exporting States--States that have willingly come forward to offer a reasonable solution.

Congress must act this year to give citizens in Ohio and other affected States the relief they need from the truckloads of waste that daily pass through their communities. We have waited too long for a solution. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East better manage the trash they generate.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the ethanol legislation that is being introduced today.

I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Hagel, Lugar, Daschle, and Johnson, in this effort to develop an ethanol package that addresses the concerns of a variety of stakeholders in the energy debate while providing a tangible benefit for the American people. I believe that increasing our use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel is a key element in our effort to construct a viable energy policy.

As I have often stated, we face an incredible challenge in putting together an energy policy for our Nation. In my view, the Senate has a responsibility to develop a policy that harmonizes energy and environmental policies, and to acknowledge that the economy and the environment are vitally intertwined.

As I has to be a policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, guarantee reasonable prices, and protect America's security. It has to be a policy that will keep energy affordable. Finally, it has to be a policy that won't cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield future environmental protection technologies.

I believe the passage of an ethanol bill will protect our energy independence, our economy, and our environment.

Increasing the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol will protect our energy independence. Given the current situation in the Middle East, perhaps our greatest energy challenge is to reduce our reliance on foreign sources to meet our energy needs. As my colleagues know, the United States currently imports about 58 percent of our crude oil. President Bush has stated repeatedly that energy security is a cornerstone for national security and it is crucial that we become less dependent on foreign sources of oil and look more to domestic sources to meet our energy needs. Ethanol is an excellent domestic source--it is a clean burning, home-grown renewable fuel that we can rely on for generations to come.

Creating a greater market for ethanol will protect our economy. Ethanol is good for our Nation's economy and, in particular, good for Ohio's economy. Ohio is sixth in the Nation in terms of corn production, and an increase in the use of ethanol across the Nation means an economic boost to thousands of farm families across my State. Ohio is one of the Nation's leading consumers of ethanol, with 40 percent of the gasoline consumed in the State containing ethanol. Because of the economic benefits of increasing consumption of ethanol, Ohio has placed a tremendous emphasis on expanding its use and is actively pursuing opportunities to build ethanol production plants.

Expanding the use of ethanol will protect our environment. Increasing the use of ethanol will help reduce auto emissions, which will clean the air and improve public health.

The language that is being introduced today is identical to the ethanol title passed by the Senate in last year's comprehensive energy bill. It is important to note that while this body overwhelmingly supported inclusion of an ethanol title in that bill, there were some significant issues raised during debate on this provision.

As chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, I intend to hold hearings on, and to mark up, this legislation so that it can be included in this Congress' version of comprehensive energy legislation. I know that Senator Inhofe, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has some strong issues with the way that MTBE is dealt with in this legislation, and I intend to work closely with him to see that those issues are resolved before we move forward with this bill.

I was delighted that the Senate was able to come together and craft a bipartisan agreement on ethanol during the last Congress. It is my hope that that spirit of bipartisanship will continue throughout this Congress and that we can finally enact a comprehensive national energy policy that includes ethanol as one of its key provisions.

Mr. President, as many of my colleagues may be aware, I am a strong advocate of NATO enlargement to include Europe's new democracies. As such, I was thrilled to have the opportunity to join President George W. Bush at the NATO Summit in Prague last November, at which time invitations for NATO membership were extended to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

I remain deeply grateful to the President for inviting me to join him as a member of the Congressional delegation to the NATO Summit, along with my colleague Senator Bill Frist, and Congressman Tom Lantos, Congressman Elton Gallegly and Congressman Doug Bereuter. I appreciate that the President has recognized my lifelong passion for the inclusion of the former Captive Nations as members of the NATO Alliance, and I was proud to be in the room on November 21, 2002, when NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson officially announced the decision to invite seven countries to become part of the Alliance.

As Lord Robertson articulated on that historic day, the decision to include these new members will serve to strengthen the Alliance as it prepares to confront new challenges to global security. After working with the NATO aspirant countries on comprehensive domestic reforms in preparation for membership in the Alliance, the Secretary General concluded that, ``We can therefore say with complete confidence that this round of enlargement will maintain and increase NATO's strength, cohesion and vitality.'' I share his belief that these countries will make significant contributions to the NATO Alliance. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers have also expressed, these countries will bring niche capabilities, as well as energy, freshness and enthusiasm, to the Alliance.

I sincerely believe that although the newly invited countries still have work to do on their Membership Action Plans, their reforms will be swifter and more complete as they are brought into the Alliance, rather than left out.

Upon our arrival in the Czech Republic, we were informed that we were invited to attend a mock NATO Summit for students, which included young people representing all 19 members of the NATO Alliance, as well as the aspirant countries. The students were scheduled to discuss and debate the same issues that were to be addressed by the Heads of States of the NATO member countries. President Bush was the keynote speaker at their event. I was pleased that Senator Frist and I had the opportunity to introduce ourselves to the various delegations, and I enjoyed the chance to share common experiences with the delegations from Macedonia, Croatia, Italy and Lithuania on an informal basis.

President Bush gave a most inspiring speech to the young people, emphasizing the fact that NATO has become more than simply a military organization, and is in fact an organization composed of people who share common values. With these common ties, he remarked, those countries who have been traditional adversaries will no longer go to war against one another. Instead, as Article V of the NATO Charter clearly states, an attack against one is an attack on all.

Following the President's speech, we proceeded to a reception with Secretary of State Colin Powell. I was delighted to talk with him about NATO's changing role, as well as the many perspectives from which he has viewed the formulation of our foreign policy. On Wednesday evening, November 20, 2002, members of the U.S. delegation attended a dinner with other delegates to the NATO Summit, which was hosted by the Aspen Institute. I was glad to have the opportunity to visit with President Mesic of Croatia, President Trajkovski of Macedonia, Prime Minister Dzurinda of the Slovak Republic, President Kucan of Slovenia, and our host, President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic.

Thursday, November 21, 2002 was a thrilling day for me. I have longed to be present when Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were invited into NATO, and I was pleased to be there to see President Havel begin the program and to hear Lord Robertson formally invite

seven countries to join the Alliance. With no objections, the consensus among the Allies was to invite these young democracies into NATO. Each delegation, through its President or Prime Minister, made a statement to express their support for these seven countries and their strategic importance to the NATO organization. It was inspiring to hear country give their enthusiastic endorsement, and it gave me some comfort that they would help to move the approval of these countries' membership through their respective legislatures.

On Thursday afternoon, I joined other members of the U.S. delegation at a small luncheon in honor of the NATO aspirant countries. I enjoyed the chance to visit with President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia, Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana of Romania, President Moisiu of Albania, Prime Minister Drnovsek of Slovenia, as well as Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of Bulgaria. It was a wonderful celebration of the invitations extended to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, as well as the ongoing reforms in Macedonia, Albania and Croatia to prepare for membership in the Alliance.

Later that day, my wife Janet and I were happy to talk further with Czech President Vaclav Havel at a dinner held in his honor at the Prague Castle. Following dinner, at 1:30 a.m. Prague time, I placed a call to Cleveland to talk with individuals with ties to NATO aspirant countries who were gathered at the Lithuanian Hall of Our Lady of Perpetual Help at a rally to celebrate the historic events that had taken place that day. I enjoyed the opportunity to share with them the experiences that I was having in Prague. It was truly a capstone to an unbelievable day that I will never forget.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate as we begin to discuss the merits of NATO enlargement during this session of Congress.

Mr. President, it will be ten years ago this October that Americans watched in horror as a U.S. humanitarian effort went terribly askew. As frightening pictures from U.S. troops in Somalia came back to the Untied States, a group of students at Riverside High School in Painesville, OH watched in shock as a U.S. soldier was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. These students, concerned with the lack of a memorial in our Nation's Capital to honor members of our armed forces who lost their lives during peacekeeping missions such as the one in Somalia, felt compelled to take action.

The motivation and vision of these young people propelled them to spearhead a campaign to establish a Pyramid of Remembrance in Washington, DC, which would honor U.S. service men and women who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations. The student not only proposed the memorial, they created a private non-profit foundation to raise the money to construct it. Along with the support of their community, who provided legal counsel for the students and private donations to help fund the project, their hard work and dedication has facilitated a Pyramid of Remembrance which would be built at little or no cost to the taxpayer.

In April 2001, the National Capital Memorial Commission, charged with overseeing monument construction in Washington, DC, held hearings about the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance. The Commission recommended that the memorial be constructed on Defense Department land, possibly at Fort McNair. The commissioners also noted that such a memorial would indeed fill a void in our Nation's military monuments.

On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs, who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at the time, the United States owes Kevin, David and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John, chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''

We must also remember and honor the lives of brave men and women who have lost their lives while defending our freedom during the global campaign against terrorism. Tragically, ten service members, including three men from the State of Ohio, lost their lives on February 21, 2002, when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed in the Philippines. They are Army Captain Bartt Owens of Franklin, OH; Army Chief Warrant Officer Jody Egnor of Middletown, OH; and Air Force Master Sgt. William McDaniel of Fort Jefferson, OH. As our Nation continues to engage in the war against terror, we must not forget the sacrifice that these men have made for their country and the freedom of all Americans.

The patriotism, dedication, and vision of the students at Riverside High School are commendable. I support and applaud the work they have done to make the Pyramid of Remembrance a reality and I believe it is our duty to honor American men and women in uniform who have lost their lives while serving their country, whether in peacetime or during war.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it will be ten years ago this October that Americans watched in horror as a U.S. humanitarian effort went terribly askew. As frightening pictures from U.S. troops in Somalia came back to the Untied States, a group of students at Riverside High School in Painesville, OH watched in shock as a U.S. soldier was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. These students, concerned with the lack of a memorial in our Nation's Capital to honor members of our armed forces who lost their lives during peacekeeping missions such as the one in Somalia, felt compelled to take action.

The motivation and vision of these young people propelled them to spearhead a campaign to establish a Pyramid of Remembrance in Washington, DC, which would honor U.S. service men and women who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations. The student not only proposed the memorial, they created a private non-profit foundation to raise the money to construct it. Along with the support of their community, who provided legal counsel for the students and private donations to help fund the project, their hard work and dedication has facilitated a Pyramid of Remembrance which would be built at little or no cost to the taxpayer.

In April 2001, the National Capital Memorial Commission, charged with overseeing monument construction in Washington, DC, held hearings about the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance. The Commission recommended that the memorial be constructed on Defense Department land, possibly at Fort McNair. The commissioners also noted that such a memorial would indeed fill a void in our Nation's military monuments.

On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs, who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at the time, the United States owes Kevin, David and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John, chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''

We must also remember and honor the lives of brave men and women who have lost their lives while defending our freedom during the global campaign against terrorism. Tragically, ten service members, including three men from the State of Ohio, lost their lives on February 21, 2002, when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed in the Philippines. They are Army Captain Bartt Owens of Franklin, OH; Army Chief Warrant Officer Jody Egnor of Middletown, OH; and Air Force Master Sgt. William McDaniel of Fort Jefferson, OH. As our Nation continues to engage in the war against terror, we must not forget the sacrifice that these men have made for their country and the freedom of all Americans.

The patriotism, dedication, and vision of the students at Riverside High School are commendable. I support and applaud the work they have done to make the Pyramid of Remembrance a reality and I believe it is our duty to honor American men and women in uniform who have lost their lives while serving their country, whether in peacetime or during war.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I concur with both of my colleagues, Senators Inhofe and Domenici, that prompt, retroactive renewal of the Price-Anderson program is in the best interest of the Nation. We need to do whatever we can to promote a safe and efficient nuclear energy industry and encourage the development of new nuclear reactors. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step in that direction.

Almost a year before the program was to expire, on August 3, 2001, I introduced S. 1360 and shortly thereafter S. 1591 to reauthorize the Act. During consideration of the Energy bill, I then proposed an amendment that included the provisions of my bills. While my colleagues recognized the importance of the amendment and passed it by a vote of 78-21, the Energy bill was ultimately not considered. Thus, I recently reintroduced my bill from last Congress as S. 156.

I am pleased that this matter is finally being handled in the Omnibus Appropriations bill with the inclusion of the House and Senate compromise language of my amendment.

Amendment No. 49

Mr. President, I----

Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side?

I thank the Chair.

First, I share the concerns of the Senator from Maryland about this problem, and I want to do everything in my power as chairman of the subcommittee on Government oversight and work toward dealing with the solution to the problem that is being presented.

According to the best information I have, this amendment would circumvent the administration's prerogative in the executive branch by prohibiting the administration from managing the Federal Government's competitive sourcing process. It would repeal initiatives passed on a bipartisan basis over the past 10 years, including the Government Performance Act.

The amendment would prohibit agencies from developing and implementing strategic plans allowing Federal employees to focus on high-priority activities, and it would prevent agencies from increasing efficiencies, lowering costs, implementing innovation and technology, and it would prevent agencies to meet their agency missions.

Additionally, the President has said that if this provision were in the Treasury-Postal appropriations, he would veto the bill.

We tried to work out a compromise based on some of these concerns that he had. We thought that it met the concerns of the Senator from Maryland. Unfortunately, it did not.

I urge that we vote no on her amendment and yes on the amendment we are proposing today--understanding this will not solve the problem and that we will need to deal with it throughout the remainder of the year.

Mr. President, I think the arguments have been made that this is about delaying something that has been looked at for over the last 10 years. I hope my colleagues will decide this issue today on a bipartisan basis, as was the letter that we sent to Administrator Whitman, asking that she move forward with the new regulations to end some 4 or 5 years of uncertainty by businesses throughout this country, in terms of routine maintenance and repair of their facilities. This vote for the Inhofe amendment is a vote for the environment. It will allow us to move forward quickly, to do what should have been done several years ago so these repairs and the maintenance can be done. We can reduce the emissions and we can make these facilities more efficient.

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

Mr. President, to my colleagues who have known me and who have heard me speak on spending issues before, what I am about to say may be very shocking, and it shocks me as well. I am going to vote for this appropriations bill. It contains only a 3-percent increase in total spending--can you believe that; that is mandatory and nondiscretionary domestic spending, a 3-percent increase--and a 2.4- percent increase in discretionary spending.

All of us should congratulate the President for sticking to his guns and keeping his promise that he was going to restrain spending while he was President.

We also should thank Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens and his colleagues on the committee who have done a good job in putting this package together. It is time for us to move on.

I would first like to comment on why we are here. Why are we here today? We would not be here today if we had passed a budget last year and had not wasted so much time debating bills on the floor of the Senate that should have been taken care of properly in committee.

Last year was the first time the Senate did not pass a budget resolution since the Budget Act of 1974. Think of that. For 29 years we passed a budget, but last year we were not able to muster up the votes to get a budget passed. In addition, we have spent so much time debating bills on the floor of the Senate that should have been handled properly in the committees where those bills originated. In so many instances where the leader was unhappy with the results of the committee work, he yanked the bills out of committee, took it into his office, rewrote the bill, put it on the floor, and we debated it. For example, the energy bill, where we spent 8 weeks debating it, when it could have been taken care of in the Energy Committee. The energy bill, the farm bill, the economic stimulus bill, we spent so much time last year dealing with things that should have been done in committee.

I am hoping the new leader gives more emphasis to the importance of committees in the Senate. I cannot understand why the previous majority party's committee chairmen were not up in arms about so many bills that should have been handled in their committees, but were pulled. We wasted a lot of time last year, and the chickens have now come home to roost. We have operated on a continuing resolution for 4 months-- October, November, December, and January.

The executive branch is already one-third through the fiscal year, and the President wants us to finish our work. The American people want us to finish our work. There are so many Federal agencies today that are providing services not knowing what their budget is going to be for this year. Starting this week, executive branch agencies must absorb a 3.1-percent pay raise within fiscal year 2002 funding levels. I know what that is like. I know, as a former governor and mayor, the pressure that puts on agencies. Many agencies will be unable to effectively allocate funds, particularly competitive grant funds, prior to the end of the fiscal year without a final appropriation in the next 20 to 30 days.

In other words, consider the many agencies that have competitive grant programs. These agencies will not be able to get their requests for grant applications out this year, nor the grant applications back in unless we get things done in the next few days. Also thousands of people, like my nephew, are out of work because companies they work for that have government contracts don't know if the projects that are being funded by the Federal Government will continue. Government programs have been on hold for the past 4 months and won't move forward until we pass an appropriations bill.

One of the things hurting our economy today is uncertainty. We have contributed to it because we haven't been doing our work.

My constituents ask me: Do you guys in Washington get it? Do you get it? Do

you understand what is going on? We are at war. The President of the United States has more on his plate than perhaps any President in my memory. Some say FDR; some say Abraham Lincoln. The economy is sputtering. Our constituents believe we are behaving like Nero, fiddling around while Rome is burning. They continue to ask, don't you get it?

We have to understand that we cannot tolerate business as usual. In fact, business as usual looks pretty good compared to what we have been doing the last year or so, and the way we have been behaving.

If corporate executives in the private sector took this much time to implement their budgets, they would never bring any projects to market or create any new jobs and our economy would collapse.

Let's get appropriations done now. None of us are happy with everything in it, and everyone would like to add something, a pet project, a pet constituent request. All of us have them. Hopefully, some will be taken care of and smoothed out in conference. But if not, they will have to be handled in the 2004 budget.

Remember we are in this pickle because we did not do our work last year. Let's get it over so we can begin to do our work this year. Let's get on with the budget, so that we can have an aggressive effort to do the 2004 appropriations bills and the other urgent business of the American people.

God only knows what the budget environment will be if we go to war with Iraq. As all of us in this body understand, even if we do not go to war, there are likely to be supplemental expenditures for whatever the final settlement with Iraq will be.

Let's look at this proposal before us. This bill represents a compromise between true fiscal discipline and Congress' desire to spend. It is made up of 11 bills. Passage of this bill will bring non- defense discretionary spending up to $385 billion, an increase of 2.4- percent over the fiscal year 2002 level. It provides everything the President asked for except the $10 billion defense contingency fund. Although this low number is something to rejoice about, we had better understand that one of the reasons it is low is that we have had a continuing resolution for the past 4 months and we have been spending money at FY 2002 levels.

Included in the package is a 1.6-percent across-the-board cut in all domestic spending, in order to accommodate some high-priority items. Let's not forget about that. Some are talking about amending this bill. The bill already contains an across-the-board reduction so we could provide $3.1 billion for drought aid for farmers in counties that have been declared disasters. In my particular case, we have 88 counties in Ohio that have been declared disasters. Mr. President, the bill includes $1.5 billion for election reform; which is not as much as we promised the states when we passed the election reform legislation, but it is a substantial amount of money that will help the states. And the bill includes $1.6 billion for a Medicare physician's fee fix. All of us have heard from our physicians in terms of the Medicare situation they are confronted with, when every year the amount of reimbursement is going down and down.

Inflation this year is only about 2.4 percent, nevertheless, all but two appropriations bills in this package are getting increases above that rate.

The Labor-HHS appropriation has grown an average of 12.4 percent every year since I have been here and will grow another 5.4 percent in this bill. So this bill does not represent draconian restrictions on Federal spending.

In fact, the proposed $750 billion budget the President wants can fund critical priorities within the limits of fiscal discipline. That $750 billion represents an increase of over 11 percent in discretionary spending in just the last 2 fiscal years. I don't know anybody who has had those kinds of increases. If you look at our spending during the last 5 years, you see we have increased spending in most of the 13 annual appropriations bills by about 7.1 percent each year. That is about a 43-percent increase in spending since I came to the Senate. During the same period of time we have had inflationary growth of only about 11.4 percent.

The projected deficit for fiscal year 2002 was $314 billion, which included using Social Security, and the projected deficit for 2003 is already $315 billion. Someone said at a meeting I attended yesterday that it could go up to about $370 billion because we are going to have to borrow more money than what we originally expected.

We just increased the debt ceiling last June and will probably need to increase it again before the end of this year. Therefore, we need to endorse this fiscally responsible approach presented to us by the Appropriations Committee today. All these amendments proposed in the last couple days would keep adding money and adding money to the deficit. That is what it is about. I cannot understand it.

I hear arguments on the other side expressing concern about the deficit, and these same people are on the floor trying to amend this appropriations bill. That would be fiscally irresponsible and would add to the deficit. The Appropriations Committee proposal is the lowest increase in spending I have seen since I have been in the Senate.

As I said, I have to take my hat off to the President for holding the line on spending, and I take my hat off to my friend, Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. He and I have had some strong words over the last several years. But as Humphrey Bogart said in ``Casablanca'': ``This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.''

I want the Appropriations chairman to know I look forward to working with him and his colleagues on the committee on the 2004 budget and hope by the end of this year we can point to another set of appropriation bills with the same type of responsible and restrained growth.

Over the last 2 days, some people have come to the floor and said we need more money for various good programs. As I mentioned before, these programs are on hold until we pass an appropriations bill. In other words, nothing is happening in some of these programs until we pass an appropriations bill.

I agree that there are many things we all want money for, but I want to point out to my colleagues what we have done during the past few years in terms of the money we have put in the pipeline--I will repeat it so everybody gets it.

Since I have been in the Senate, we have increased discretionary spending by 10 percent in 1999, 15 percent in 2001, and 9 percent in 2002. We have allocated so much additional money to Federal agencies that many of them have had difficulty spending all of it. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has consistently recaptured $1.5 billion to $2 billion in unallocated section 8 housing vouchers.

Mr. President, what we are doing here is fiscally responsible. Let's get it done. Let's get on with it. Let's finish the work of the 107th Congress so we can get on with the work of the 108th, starting with the 2004 budget. And we need to move aggressively with the appropriations bills, so that we can get on with an energy bill, and do something about some of the other pressing issues facing the American people.

Mr. President, I rise today to correct some inaccuracies that were stated by my colleague from Nevada during last night's session regarding nuclear security and Senator Byrd's amendment to increase funding for homeland security. My friend from Nevada came to the floor and argued that this body should support Senator Byrd's amendment because our Nation's nuclear facilities are ``inadequately protected.'' After hearing this statement, I felt it was my duty as the chairman of the Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee to set the record straight on the security of our Nation's nuclear facilities. This is an area that I have worked hard to investigate and fully understand. I urge my colleagues to also spend time carefully reviewing the existing security controls at our Nation's nuclear facilities before they rush to any judgments. The best way to do this is to go and visit the facilities in order to see the security measures in practice.

Last August, I visited the Davis Bessie Nuclear facility in Oak Harbor, OH, for the purpose of reviewing the operations of the plant. I was extremely impressed with security measures in place to gain entrance and access to the facility. Also this last April, I had the opportunity to spend a half day at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Perry, OH to specifically review their security systems. I received a classified security briefing at the facility, which I highly recommend to all of my colleagues. In addition, I participated in personnel and vehicle searches, and I

reviewed the external security systems, including meeting with the Coast Guard which patrols Lake Erie off the coast of the Perry facility.

My tour of the security operations confirmed for me that every security measure is being taken to protect our energy supply from terrorist attack and the members of the surrounding community should be very comfortable with the level of security that protects them and the facility. In fact, if I were a terrorist the last place I would try and take over or attack would be a nuclear powerplant with the security measures at Perry and Davis Bessie. This past fall, I visited the EU Headquarters at The Hague in Brussels. I was impressed with the security required to gain entrance to the facility, but it didn't compare to the security at Perry and Davis Bessie nuclear plants.

In addition to these visits, I have participated in several committee hearings on nuclear plant security and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including a classified security briefing. While I have found the security measures to be impressive, this does not decrease my resolve to remain at the forefront of this issue and ensure the safety of these facilities. Last Congress, I supported the Nuclear Security Act of 2002 in the EPW Committee. In the 108th Congress, I will continue to look for ways to improve our excellent security at our Nation's nuclear powerplants.

Nuclear energy is important to our Nation's economy and environment. America's nuclear energy industry currently provides approximately 20 percent of our energy. It is a safe, reliable, and zero-emission source of energy that is an important part of our energy future.

I agree with my colleague that we have an obligation to the American people to ensure the safety of these facilities. I have and will continue to scrutinize the security at our Nation's nuclear plants. However, I disagree that this is an appropriate argument for this debate on homeland security funding. I urge my colleagues to look at the facts and go and see for yourself the efforts of these plants.

Mr. President, if there is one thing that this Senate can agree on wholeheartedly is that we, as a Nation, need to invest in our children's educational future. There is no other issue that hits closer to home for America's families.

But even as we recognize the importance of education, we must realize that close to home is where education works best in America, and simply spending more and more Federal dollars on more and more Federal ``one size fits all'' education directives will not, by itself, make our education system perform better.

When this body voted to pass the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, I did not vote for this bill. I could not vote for this bill in good conscience for two reasons. One, the bill fundamentally usurped control over education from those closest to the students. Education has been and should continue to be a State and local responsibility. Additionally, the excessive spending within the bill provided unrealistic expectations.

Over the course of my 36 years of public service to the people of Ohio, I have developed a passion for the issue of federalism, that is, assigning the appropriate role of the Federal Government in relaxation to State and local government.

Our forefathers outlined this relationship in the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Education is one such responsibility. And this was the tradition in America for 200 years. Only in the last 35 years has the Federal Government played a prominent role in education in America. And even then, the most we sent to our State and localities is 7 percent of the education spending in America.

In my view, the No Child Left Behind Act not only violated that principle of federalism, it puts us on a fast-track towards thoroughly federalizing education and violates local control of schools.

Some of my colleagues think that the Congress is the national school board. Well, we are not the national school board here in this Congress.

With the expansion of education programs that the Federal Government undertook in that bill, I have a genuine concern that in ten or fifteen years, Washington will be dictating what is happening in every school house in America. In spite of the limited contribution of the Federal Government, under the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington will be mandating annual tests for elementary and middle school children in America regardless of how the kids are doing or whether or not the States already have sophisticated testing regimes in place.

States as Ohio, where the Governor signed a new testing system into law on June 12, 2002, detailed testing systems are already in place. And no one understands how onerous additional testing programs will be. Principals, local school boards, parents and especially teachers in Ohio are saying, ``Here we go again.''

We are already seeing the results of Federal intrusion into our Nation's schools. It is an unworkable, unflexible plan that is punitive to our children. Simply spending more Federal dollars on more Federal ``one size fits all'' education directives will not make our education system perform better.

Besides the dangerous increase in Federal control of education, I want to point out the real increase in funding the Department of Education has received over the past several years, during which deficits have only grown. From 1998 to 2002, we have increased total funding for the Department of Education by 57 percent or $20.3 billion.

Specifically following the passage of the No Child Left Behind legislation, according to the Congressional Research Service, funding for ESEA in Fiscal Year 2002 increased more by than $3 billion, 17 percent, from fiscal year 2001.

Unfortunately, because the majority of No Child Left Behind does not provide actual monetary guidelines for its authorization--instead utilizing ``as such sums''--we have no idea of the potential costs of the bill.

However, we can look at Title I, one of the largest accounts within the No Child Left Behind Act.

In the Omnibus bill before us, the base text already includes an increase for Title I funding of $1 billion, a 10 percent increase from fiscal year 2002.

Senator Kennedy has brought an amendment to the floor that seeks to appropriate the entire amount of the authorization for Title I--$16 billion for fiscal year 2003. His one amendment alone would cost $6 billion.

If we follow the argument that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make, that the authorization level is a mandate to fully fund these account, in this case Title I, this body will vacate any fiscal responsibility we have.

Just look at the increases for Title I if we were to fully fund them: from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003, an increase of 18.5 percent; from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, an increase of 15.6 percent; from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005, an increase of 11 percent; from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006, an increase of 11 percent; from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007, an increase of 10 percent; where is this money coming from? We are spending money we don't have.

The projected deficit for fiscal year 2003 is already $315 billion, and don't forget, folks, we have a $6.2 trillion national debt.

According to CBO projections that I recently requested, if we continue spending at the rate we have been spending and extend the tax cut, we could rack up an additional $5.4 trillion in debt by fiscal year 2012.

This means that by fiscal year 2012, our national debt could stand at a whopping $11.6 trillion.

Leaving this sort of burden on our children and grandchildren is simply wrong. We need to make hard choices now so that this doesn't happen.

We just increased the debt ceiling in June 2002, and we will probably need to increase it again before the end of this year. We are looking at oceans of red as far as the eye can see.

This entire omnibus process is indicative of how the entire budget process has slipped.

While the House passed a budget resolution in March 2002, the Senate never did.

That was the first time in the history of the budget process that the Senate failed to enact a budget resolution. Not only did we not pass a budget, the Democrat leadership did not even bring a resolution to floor for consideration.

This only precipitated what has become modus operandi for the Senate--not getting our appropriations bills out in time.

This body cannot go back in time to correct our past mistakes. We need to move forward and we need to move forward now.

The executive branch is already one-third through the fiscal year. Starting this week, executive branch agencies must absorb a 3.1 percent pay raise within Fiscal Year 2002 funding levels.

Many agencies will be unable to effectively allocate funds prior to the

end of the fiscal year without a final appropriation in the next 20 to 30 days.

Let's get on with the business at hand. This Congress has much work to do, not the least of which is providing our Nation's seniors with a prescription drug benefit and an economic growth package to stimulate the sagging economy.

The Congress and the administration have already agreed on a $750 billion cap for fiscal year 2003. This amount meets President Bush's request and will fund critical priorities.

And let me remind my colleagues who seek to spend additional money; $750 billion represents an increase of over 12 percent in discretionary spending in just the last two fiscal years.

We need to be real in our assumptions and our spending habits.

If Congress doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, we are going to wake up with enormous deficits--by CBO's most recent projections, $866 billion in fiscal year 2012.

Enough is enough.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)