Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have to admit that I do not read the New York

Times cover to cover each day. But from time to time, items in that paper do catch my attention. For instance, when a group runs a full- page advertisement, one cannot help but at least glance at the ad.

A couple weeks ago, one such advertisement caught my attention. It was a full-page advertisement placed in the New York Times by two special interest groups: the Natural Resources Defense Council and Moveon.org. These two special interest groups are especially vocal and devoted solely to disparaging the environmental record of the Bush administration.

I have an enlarged version of that advertisement that ran in the New York Times. It is chart 1. As you can see, it states, in large print: ``First Arsenic, Now Mercury.'' It has pictures of President Bush alongside a powerplant billowing with smoke. The ad makes such claims as: the President's policies are the source for mercury contamination in fish and that the President is simply following the wishes of industry contributors. The ad makes direct statements such as: ``So why is President Bush trying to weaken controls on mercury pollution?''

I am chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, so this ad was of particular interest to me for at least a couple reasons. To anyone reading this advertisement, the reader would naturally assume there must be some already existing controls on mercury emissions from powerplants because the ad explicitly claims that President Bush is trying to weaken those controls.

How can you weaken controls if there are no controls to start with? So it is assuming there are controls existing. This claim is completely false. I believe this chart demonstrates that. The NRDC's lobbying claim is that the President is weakening controls on mercury emissions from powerplants. The facts, however, are very different.

On December 15, 2003, this President proposed the first ever controls on mercury emissions from utilities. Now, keep in mind, there were no controls before, none whatsoever. How can you weaken controls if there are no controls there?

The Clinton administration had 8 years to propose such controls and did not. In nearly 3,000 days as EPA Administrator, how many mercury regulations on powerplants did former EPA Administrator Carol Browner issue? Zero. Instead, in the last month of the eighth year of the Clinton administration, Carol Browner deftly handed a regulatory lemon to the Bush administration that she was unwilling to impose during the Clinton administration. What a courageous move.

I am very proud that President Bush and his EPA Administrator, Mike Leavitt, have shown leadership where President Clinton and Carol Browner fumbled and failed. In fact, Administrator Leavitt testified before the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air in a hearing on April 1, 2004. In questioning, the Administrator ably drew the line between fact and fiction regarding the President's proposals regulating mercury from powerplants. I want to read to you one of his quotes. The Administrator explained:

One fiction is that the EPA does not view mercury as a

toxin. The fact is mercury is a toxin and it needs to be

reduced. Another fiction is that somehow the agency is

seeking the Administration to roll back standards. The fact

is there has never been a standard, this will be the first

time that we will have regulated mercury from power plants in

our Nation's history and we want to do it right.

Now, that is what Administrator Leavitt said, reemphasizing there has been no regulation on mercury.

Why shouldn't we propose the right mercury rule based on sound science? There are no existing control standards for utility mercury emissions, so how can President Bush weaken a control standard for mercury that does not exist? That simply does not make sense.

The NRDC has been a prominent national special interest group for many years. So why would the NRDC run such an ad that is completely false? I believe the answer to that question leads me to the second reason this ad was of particular interest to me.

I had this advertisement enlarged to highlight one particular part of it. Keep in mind, this was a full-page ad that cost, as I understand it, around $110,000 for 1 day.

This is what was on the bottom, if you will notice the perforated block at the end of the full-page ad circled in red. I especially wanted to highlight this portion of the ad pictured on the chart because this block is the reason why this ad ran. This perforated block is a contribution form. The contribution form states:

Yes, I want to join the Natural Resources Defense Council

and help thwart President Bush's plan to weaken controls on

toxic mercury.

This is the most important part:

Here is my tax deductible gift of $ [blank].

The form further states to ``make your check payable to the NRDC and mail it to the NRDC mercury campaign.''

I believe it is bad enough to run a false advertisement, but to solicit charitable contributions based on that false advertisement is especially troubling. The New York Times is widely distributed in my home State of Oklahoma, as it is throughout the rest of the country. It would be very disturbing to learn that based on a false ad, people are scared into contributing.

For the past several years, my State of Oklahoma has been rated in the top 25 percent of States for charitable contributions per gross income. It would greatly trouble me if even one of these contributors was misled by any charitable solicitation.

The Council for Better Business Bureaus, a national organization, compiles a Wise Giving Alliance report authorizing a seal of approval to charities that meet the organization's standards. One of the standards the council has established to measure charities deals with solicitations by those charities. Part C of those standards states the following:

1. Solicitations and informational materials, distributed

by any means, shall be accurate, truthful and not misleading,

both in whole and in part.

2. Soliciting organizations shall substantiate on request

that solicitations and informational materials, distributed

by any means, are accurate, truthful and not misleading in

whole or in part.

The NRDC, describing itself as a charity, should substantiate this false advertisement. The President has proposed the first controls on mercury emissions from powerplants, the first ever. The Better Business Bureau should hold the NRDC accountable for their purposefully misleading statements. However, NRDC's irresponsibility is sanctionable in other manners as well.

Solicitations by charitable organizations are regulated in part by Federal statutes and case law. However, the solicitation of charitable contributions is mainly regulated by individual State law, and violations of solicitation statutes can be prosecuted under state law. Solicitation by charitable organizations is strictly regulated against fraud and misleading advertisement under the Oklahoma statutes. Oklahoma State law reads in relevant part:

Any person [or organization] who attempts to solicit any

contribution as a charitable organization by means of

knowingly false or misleading advertisement shall lose its

status as a tax exempt organization and upon conviction be

guilty of a felony.

This criminal liability extends to all officers and agents of the charity involved in the solicitation. We take this very seriously in Oklahoma. At least 40 other States have just as strict statutes against soliciting contributions by misleading advertising.

Arguably this ad by NRDC may be unlawful in as many as 40 other States that also have charitable solicitation statutes. This advertisement by the NRDC and MoveOn.org explicitly states the President is weakening mercury standards while they are trying to swindle contributions from people all across the country who may see this advertisement. I don't know what else this ad represents, but specifically NRDC, which describes itself as a charitable organization on its Web site, soliciting contributions by making knowingly false statements to cheat people out of contributions--in Oklahoma, that could make you a felon.

The most shocking part of this is not even that NRDC is running a completely false ad or NRDC is running a completely false ad simply to fleece people for contributions; the most shocking part is the American taxpayer subsidizes the NRDC hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to conduct this type of activity. Public IRS

records for the last several years demonstrate NRDC regularly receives thousands of Federal grant dollars each year. In 2002, the NRDC received more than a half million dollars in government grants. In 2003, the NRDC was additionally awarded more than half a million dollars again in government grants. The cycle continues year after year after year.

The Environment and Public Works Committee has oversight jurisdiction over several Federal agencies. I believe my committee has the obligation to ensure Federal funds allocated to these agencies are used responsibly.

One agency in particular under the jurisdiction of the committee I chair, the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, is the Environmental Protection Agency. The committee has the responsibility to assure American taxpayers their money is going toward accomplishing the EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment.

On March 3, my committee held its first hearing into the matter in which EPA allocates grants each year. The EPA is a granting agency, allocating more than half of its $8 billion annual budget in grants to State, local, tribal governments, educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and a variety of other recipients. I announced at the hearing the committee was going to take its oversight responsibilities seriously in regard to grants management, and I intend to take this responsibility seriously until real changes are made in grants management.

The committee heard testimony of problems with grants management. I am confident we will begin to make real changes with the leadership of the Bush administration and Administrator Leavitt.

However, the NRDC, for example, has made it a matter of doing business to apply for Federal grant awards that I believe help subsidize it to run ads such as this one. It costs more than $110,000 a day to run a full-page ad in the New York Times. The NRDC and MoveOn.org are spending thousands of dollars to purposely misrepresent the Bush environmental record and scare people into contributing based on those false representations.

I am announcing that I am sending letters today to the two largest judicial jurisdictions in Oklahoma and requesting those district attorneys to investigate the legality of this advertisement in Oklahoma. I am also sending a letter to the Better Business Bureau requesting that organization to more carefully consider this false advertisement in their rating of the NRDC in awarding their Wise Giving Alliance seal and ask that it formally request NRDC to substantiate its baseless claim.

I ask unanimous consent that all three letters be printed in the Record.

A couple years ago, I read a series of articles in the Sacramento Bee highlighting the facade of many environmental groups. The article made the point that today's environmental groups, like NRDC, are more about their own prosperity than environmental protection. I still have those articles in my office. I thought one particular quote was especially fitting.

The author wrote of environmental groups:

Competition for money and members is keen. Litigation is

blood sport. Crises, real or not, is a commodity, and slogans

and sound bites masquerade as scientific fact.

That quote was written in 2001. It is still more true today in 2004. But it is not something new. That quote captures the way NRDC and its cohorts have been doing business for years. They should be responsible. They should be truthful. This type of activity goes beyond what the NRDC does with Federal tax dollars, but I intend to explore what NRDC and groups like it are also publishing and the extent of the rampant false claims made by these groups the American taxpayers help to fund each year.

We are not going to allow this to continue. They are getting into the types of discretionary grants we are dealing with through the EPA and other agencies. It is shameful that it is going on. We are now in a position, with the committee I chair, to do something about it. We intend to do that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today as consumers in America-- businesses and farmers and families--are facing gasoline prices at a record high. Prices for natural gas, which is used to heat our homes and workplaces, have gone through the roof.

In fact, I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we had a hearing this week on the crisis we are facing, and that is our farmers are having to pay twice as much as they did 6 months ago because of the skyrocketing costs of natural gas. And all of this is due to the fact we have a lot of the far-left environmental groups trying to keep us from being able to produce more oil and gas, and it is a crisis. It is a crisis, as we pointed out in this committee hearing. Unfortunately, due to obstructionist tactics led by the radical environmental groups, bipartisan energy policy legislation continues to just be out of grasp of passage in the Congress.

Yesterday, those who are against domestic energy production and in favor of higher costing energy prices plaguing us today were given a boost by the presumptive Democrat for President who said in a speech in San Diego, CA:

We need a new direction on energy policy.

And went on to lay blame for the high cost of gas on the Bush administration, while attempting to put forth an energy plan of his own. Rather than advance a policy actually related to our Nation's energy needs and supplies, the Senator consistently suggested policies that would increase cost to consumers, that would consistently increase cost to businesses, that would consistently undermine our economy and force high-paying manufacturing jobs overseas. We have seen this taking place. It is taking place today. I heard our very eloquent junior Senator from Ohio talk about the number of jobs they have lost in the State of Ohio just for this reason.

His statements about the Bush administration are incorrect. One of the first proposals the Bush administration made was a comprehensive energy plan in 2001 that would increase domestic energy supplies and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Congress took up legislation and incorporated many aspects of the President's plan, and I note that the Senator who finds it easier to criticize than do was nowhere to be found when the bipartisan Energy bill, H.R. 6, was debated and passed by the Senate by a vote of 84 to 14 on July 13, 2003.

It intrigues me that this issue is important enough for the Member to take time to discuss it out of his busy campaign schedule, but not important enough for him to be present and vote on the bipartisan legislation that was brought before this body. In fact, to my

recollection, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, prior to yesterday, never once proposed comprehensive energy legislation during his 19 years in the Senate.

What we heard from San Diego yesterday was really less of an energy policy for the Nation and more of a checklist of how to increase energy costs to consumers. I am not surprised at that fact since it is clear from his voting record over the last many Congresses that affordable domestically produced energy was far from a priority of the Senator. His claim yesterday to aggressively develop domestic oil and gas supplies does not seem genuine to me as he has no specific plan to do so and has spent a lot of his time stopping us and this country from being able to explore such areas as ANWR and offshore that would allow us to be energy independent.

Let me be perfectly fair. This goes back a number of years. I can remember even back during the Reagan administration making talks about the fact at that time we were 35 percent dependent on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. And yet now it is closer to 60 percent. So there we are only 2,000 acres of ANWR's Coastal Plain, about the size of Dulles Airport, for oil exploration and development; 2,000 acres that could provide the United States with enough oil to replace imports from Saudi Arabia for the next 30 years.

But actually, as the junior Senator from Massachusetts proposes to solve the energy crisis, for one he is going against his own advice and now calling for President Bush to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a move that would threaten our national security without any benefit.

We know from recent history that releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would have no impact on gasoline prices. On September 22, 2000, former President Clinton released 30 million barrels of oil from our strategic stockpiles. The effect, according to Energy Information Administration, was 1 penny savings per gallon of gasoline. So that does not work. It makes good conversation, it sounds good, but we know it does not work, and he knows it, too.

During that time, the junior Senator from Massachusetts stated himself that a release is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market, he said. Now he has flip-flopped and it is the cornerstone of an energy plan more about politics than meeting the real needs for American families and businesses.

Even experts such as the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Carter Energy Secretary James Schlesinger, and other top energy officials have warned for years that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should not be used as a market management scheme. It is there for national security. I think we all understand that.

Further, it is important to note while we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we do not release our strategically held resources to fit political whims but should only do it to address a major supply disruption, such as political instability from a source nation, which is highly likely, and I think we understand that situation. The relative instability of supply nations is well known. Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is our Nation's buffer, a safety net. The junior Senator from Massachusetts would have us squander our Nation's strategic reserves for his political gain, forcing our country into a far weaker position.

The presumptive Democrat nominee's call to release oil from our strategic reserves is also surprising to me because what he is really calling for is to increase our domestic supplies. Experts agree that one of the principal reasons that our Nation was able to weather the oil embargo of the 1970s was largely because new supplies were coming online from Prudhoe Bay, AK. Yet, as I said before, the Senator staunchly opposes developing oil from the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. The policy of the junior Senator from Massachusetts seems to be: Let us use our strategic reserves but not have any more oil to replenish them.

The Senator is also quick to praise himself for his foreign policy experience. Yet that experience must not have translated to the energy sector. Oil is a global commodity; therefore, the world market must be considered. What has happened in the global market? China's increased demand for oil has constrained world oil supplies which have only been exacerbated by OPEC's recent reduction restrictions.

We should also note that another key component of the Senator's plan to address our Nation's high gasoline prices is for the administration to get tough with or jawbone OPEC, the implication being that President Bush is not advocating America's interest, that he is too soft.

The foreign policy of the junior Senator from Massachusetts is interesting on this point. On one hand he criticized the President for not kowtowing to the United Nations and countries such as France in the war on terrorism and on the other hand suggests that the administration is too soft on oil-producing nations. You cannot have it both ways.

In addition, the Senator has been a supporter of drastic climate change legislation that would cripple our economy and legislation that would literally shut down powerplants in the United States, the outcome of which would send hundreds of thousands of American jobs overseas and seriously stress our supply of energy.

It was the Wharton Econometrics Survey that came out with the conclusion that if we signed on to the Kyoto Treaty, it would cost 1.4 million jobs--that is what we are talking about today: jobs--it would double the price of energy, it would cost an increase of 65 cents a gallon on gasoline, and it would cost the average family of four $2,700 a year. That is not Jim Inhofe talking; that is what came from the Wharton School of Economics.

In addition, the Senator has been a supporter of drastic climate change legislation that we have talked about that would be disastrous for this country. Again, since the Senator has not developed an energy policy before and failed to show up for the Energy bill vote, I must look to his words and not his actions to determine what is the intent of his energy policy.

The Senator's recommended energy and environmental policy seems to be tainted with an overriding intent to impose his utopian view of the future without any consideration on present reality at any cost. The junior Senator from Massachusetts makes nonhydropower renewable energy a cornerstone of his energy policy. Again, however, we must look to the Senator's words on the matter and not his deeds.

Last year's energy bill renewed a tax credit for wind and solar energy, a credit that expired on December 31. The Senator failed to show up for the crucial vote and the tax credit died. Prior to that vote, Randall Swisher of the American Wind Energy Association said: If the energy bill dies, extension of the wind production tax credit will also die for any time in the foreseeable future.

Swisher and many in the industry contend the credit is essential to maintaining their businesses. He said:

If we weren't in the bill, the credit that is the

foundation of our industry was going to expire and with it

our industry would expire.

So, yes, it was important for them to see the energy bill move forward. President Bush recognizes the valuable contribution renewables can play in our Nation's energy mix. The President dedicated $1.7 billion over 5 years to develop hydrogen fuel cells and related technologies. In 2005, in his budget, it includes $228 million for a hydrogen fuel initiative, an increase of $69 million, or 43 percent, over the 2004 funding to develop the technologies to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for the use of fuel cell vehicles, electricity generation, and other applications.

The 2005 budget proposes tax incentives totaling $4.1 billion through 2009 to spur the use of clean, renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.

President Bush's plan invests in the future. He wisely recognizes nonhydropower renewable energy represents only about 1 percent of our Nation's energy mix.

The Senator, on the other hand, would mandate 20 percent of our Nation's electricity be generated with those very same renewable sources by 2020.

In 2003, DOE's Energy Information Administration concluded a 10- percent mandate could cost Americans more than $100 billion. However, the effect would likely be far more severe in certain regions of the country where ``not

in my backyard'' and the risks seem to drive policy without regard to fixed and low-income residents.

The fact is wind energy, the most cost-effective renewable, is only effective when the wind blows. We already know where the rich elite stand on developing wind turbines off the coast of Cape Code in the Senator's home State of Massachusetts.

The presumptive Democrat nominee also supports legislation that would cap carbon dioxide under pollution-reducing bills as well as under the auspices of global climate change. Again, the Senator seeks to impose his utopian world view on people without bothering to consider our Nation's energy makeup, or more likely he is but does not seem to care.

Drastic carbon dioxide reduction strategies the Senator supports would effectively force coal out of use. I think we all understand that. Coal right now, whether the junior Senator from Massachusetts and his special interest radical supporters like it or not, makes up one- quarter of our country's energy mix.

Recently, it has been reported the junior Senator from Massachusetts supported a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline. The effects of such a tax on our country are obvious. However, I think it is important to note such a tax is another example of the Senator's overriding opposition to fossil fuels and his blind and unwavering support for nonhydropower renewables without regard to the state of our Nation's actual energy mix.

Nonhydropower renewable energy is a wonderful concept and with the administration's investments in developing technology, I am confident its use will increase considerably. However, today it is too costly, which leads me back to the Senator's overriding intent behind his suggested energy policies.

The presumptive Democrat nominee and his radical environmental group supporters also recognize renewables are not cost competitive compared with traditional energy sources today. Their answer: Embark on a strategy to make fossil fuel use so expensive and burdened with regulations that nonhydropower renewables suddenly become more cost effective by comparison.

Let's recap a few of the highlights of the recommendations of the junior Senator from Massachusetts. No. 1, empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. No. 2, do not produce domestic oil. No. 3, impose a tax on gasoline, some 50 cents a gallon. No. 4, impose a mandate increasing nonhydropower renewable energies from 1 percent to 20 percent in 15 years. No. 5, restrict carbon dioxide emissions, which translates to reducing U.S. economic production.

The Senator's energy policy is certainly bold, if nothing else. It is just that the Senator's utopian view of the future ignores our very real present.

Like his radical special interest supporters, the Senator's energy policies would increase costs on American consumers, disproportionately affect the low and fixed-income taxpayers, and drastically undermine the ability to compete in the global market.

If this were not a Presidential election year and we were asked to judge a man not on his words but on his actions, we would in large measure know what the Senator's energy policy would be: Do nothing but make speeches.

Some may scoff at what I am saying. We all know the Senator was too busy campaigning to do the job his constituents elected him to do and the job American taxpayers have paid him to do. Instead of actually doing some work and crafting an energy policy, the junior Senator from Massachusetts chooses to make outrageous allegations from the comfort of multimillion-dollar mansions in Beverly Hills.

I yield the floor.

Madam President.

Madam President, I was asked a question, and I would like to answer the question.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Collison be given floor privileges for the remainder of this day.

Mr. President, I compliment the senior Senator from Oklahoma. He is doing a great job in handling this most difficult issue.

We go through this every year, and I believe we are going to finally get something done tonight. I certainly hope we will and that we will have what we all will be proud of.

I can't help but comment. I happened to come in when my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, was leaving the Chamber. It seems as if the argument you hear from the liberal side of this body is the fact that all of this came about as a result of the tax cuts of this administration. I feel compelled to remind this body of the history of these tax cuts. It was not a Republican idea. Ironically, one of the truly great Democrat Presidents of this country, John Kennedy, was the guy who came up with the concept. He said--and this is an exact quote--

We need more revenues to run these programs that we have

and the best way to increase revenues is to reduce marginal

rates.

That was back in the 1960s, and it worked.

There is a recognition of the problem we have right now. This administration inherited a recession, and they are coming out of it by having the very tax reductions to add to the amount of revenues coming in. This is going to work. It is working today. If you do not think it does, let us remember what happened back in the 1980s.

In the 1980s, the total amount of money that was raised from marginal rates was $244 billion. In the 1990s, it was $466 billion. That was the 10-year period of the largest tax reductions on marginal rates in the history of America. It had the result of increasing--not decreasing-- the amount of revenue.

The formula used was for each 1-percent increase in economic activity, it creates $46 billion of new revenues. John F. Kennedy knew that, Ronald Reagan knew that, and we ought to know that today, but we ignore history.

Now my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, is coming up with another one of his favorite tax increases. I have never seen a tax increase he didn't like. But this seems to be one of his favorite ones.

We are going to have a big tax increase to vote on in just a few minutes. It is called the Superfund tax.

There is a lot of doubletalk. On the one hand, they blame the administration for U.S. job loss and lack of competitiveness. At the same time, they want to impose a tax that expired in 1995 on some of the most fragile industries that are not going to make it.

People say reinstating the Superfund tax will be a deficit-reduction- reducing measure. I am not sure that is necessarily true. What you are going to do is drive a lot of people out of business who are already overtaxed.

I think if I could single out one argument I find the most offensive--and I hear it as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee over and over and over--every time we have a committee hearing, they talk about ``polluter pay.'' Polluters are paying today. That is the whole concept. When a polluter pollutes, that polluter pays.

In fact, historically, PRPs--potentially responsible parties--since Superfund started, the average of all cleanups has been 70 percent in the average year of those cleanups which are cleaned up by industries that have polluted.

This is interesting because in 2003, that 70 percent jumped to 80 percent.

In other words, all but 13 percent of the cleanups took place and were paid for by the polluters.

The antijobs and the protax supporters also ignore the fact that the Superfund tax, on its face, is unfair. It has nothing to do with taxing companies and industries that pollute. If an industry falls into a certain category--say you are going to have your taxes go up. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have ever polluted. In fact, oil and petroleum companies have paid more than 50 percent of the Superfund taxes but were responsible for less than 10 percent of the liability on Superfund sites.

That is historically accurate. I would defy anyone to challenge it. As a result, this is an especially unfair tax to American families who have to pay more at the pump.

Furthermore, Superfund tax supporters argue that cleanups have slowed down as a result of the amount of money lost from the trust fund. That isn't true at all. In fact, we had testimony in our hearings this last week that there is not a correlation between the amount of money in the Superfund reserve and the amount of cleanup.

In 1996, the tax fund was at its highest level. Yet the amount spent by the Clinton administration in 1996 for Superfund cleanup was at a 10-year low.

This year's Superfund budget request is around $1.4 billion. But wait a minute. Let us look at what they are proposing.

In this amendment, they propose an $8.5 billion tax increase. This is the same thing we went through, by the way, last year. There has never been a correlation between the amount of money raised by a tax and the amount of money that has been spent.

For those who are responsible for contamination, they are already being held liable for cleanup costs under Superfund. No one is getting let off the hook, and I will challenge right now the other side to name one viable polluter who is not being held accountable for the Superfund contamination they caused.

Here we are again with the same amendment. We have had it several times before. Senator Lautenberg danced this thing out again. We beat it the last time 57 to 43. I will be down here to remind people how they voted before. They will forget.

I honestly believe the only issue here is if you want to increase taxes on the American people by $8.5 billion in one vote, this is your opportunity to do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is very important everyone knows this is nothing but a huge tax increase on businesses, on industries. Many of them are very frail at this time. They have nothing to do with pollution. Polluters-pay is happening right now.

Since the inception of this program, 70 percent of the sites have been cleaned up and paid for by people who polluted. Last year, it was 87 percent. Where there is a polluter that can be found, that polluter pays. That system is working.

If you have to have an $8.5 billion tax increase on various businesses--and right now we have businesses going out of business-- then this is your opportunity to do it. This is a huge tax increase, $8.5 billion. We do not need it, and it is unfair.

By the way, we resoundingly defeated this amendment several times before. The last vote was 57 to 43. Many Democrats voted with us in voting against this tax increase. I encourage them to do the same now.

Mr. President, Senator Bingaman and I have an amendment that has been agreed to on both sides. I call up amendment No. 2823 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment addresses the Energy Savings Performance Contract Program. It is a program that costs no money. It is all paid for by the savings that are accumulated. This has been cleared on both sides. Everyone is for it. I can't find anyone who is against it. The problem arose when CBO started scoring this after not having scored it. By its very nature, it will not cost any money.

There is no cost to it. This is the Energy Savings Performance Contract Program that allows a company to go into an Air Force base to show them how they can, through energy savings, save $2 or $3 million a year. Then they are compensated from the savings, and from that point forward it goes back to the recipient. There is no cost.

May I respond? There is no cost to this program, because no public dollars are involved. It is where someone goes in and finds ways to save energy and, if they are successful in doing that, they merely pay the money back. The Government doesn't get involved at all in the program. So there is no cost.

Mr. President, several analyses of the water infrastructure funding gap have been released. The analyses show gaps ranging from $3 billion a year to $23 billion a year. Regardless of which number one chooses, the evidence is mounting that we as a nation are not investing enough in the infrastructure that provides Americans with clean and safe water.

Much of that gap is due to the rising cost municipalities must incur to meet ever-growing Federal regulations. Regulations that are kicking in at a time when many treatment plants are exceeding their expected life time.

Clearly, if the Federal Government is going to continue imposing insurmountable costs on our towns, it must be willing to put forth a fair share of the money. As the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am working with two of the sponsors of this amendment, Senator Jeffords and Crapo, to craft a water infrastructure bill.

One thing that we have had in common throughout these negotiations is a belief that more money is needed. I was very pleased to see that the budget committee restored the funding cut to the clear water SRF.

However, cutting or even level funding the program is not the answer. We simply must find a way to provide more resources to these programs, fulfill our obligations and then allow the States to run their programs without further Federal contributions, as Congress always intended.

While I very much support my colleagues' efforts to get more money for these programs, I have not yet settled on what I believe is the appropriate level. I am supporting this amendment in concept and urge my colleagues to also vote yes. As chairman of the EPW Committee, I assure my colleagues that we are on the verge of a true crisis.

I support the Crapo-Jeffords amendment.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. I think everything I would have said has been said by our chairman, Senator Warner.

We have 325,000 troops scattered around 120 different countries. I chaired the Subcommittee on Readiness for a number of years. That was during the 1990s when we were making cuts in our defense across the board in terms of end strength, in terms of numbers of divisions and numbers of tactical air wings, in terms of the numbers of ships, in terms of modernization, and in terms of readiness. It was very disturbing during that time. I was outspoken at that time that we might be going too far.

Recently we went through this thing of not having adequate body armor. Of course, the Army, in this case, responded with our help and we are able to say now they are taken care of adequately.

In modernization, we are going into the future combat system. We were delayed in the 1990s. Now things are getting back on track. However, we often say we want our troops, our men and women in uniform, to have the very best of equipment and the best support.

Quite frankly, we don't have as good equipment as some of our potential adversaries in the case of our artillery. We are still dealing with World War II technologies when there are five countries that have made a better case than we have. I don't think the American people want our young people going into combat with anything except the best. That is what this is about. We are in a rebuilding mode right now. We are talking about transforming all branches. We are talking about changing the way our troops are stationed around the world. This is going to be expensive. We are in the middle of a war. I strongly support the increases recommended by the chairman, Senator Warner.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Life at Conception Act. This bill is of utmost importance to future generations in America. Quite simply, it implements equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for every born and pre-born person. It protects Americans' right to life by defining the term ``human person'' as an individual at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of conception.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment grants that no ``state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' Furthermore, it grants ``Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'' It is time that we, the Congress, start enforcing this provision, start defending the Constitution, and start defending American lives.

Even the Justices in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision conceded this point by making the admission: ``If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [Roe], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.'' Our Constitution is designed to protect the rights of all Americans, and give them the right to live and succeed. Right now, significant portions of Americans, who have no voice, are being killed, despite the explicit protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. Since 1973, more than 44 million babies have been sentenced to death without trial. We cannot tolerate this atrocity.

Additionally, a 1999 Wirthlin poll found that 62 percent of Americans support legal abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. How can we stand by and let so many children die even when public opinion is on our side? It is our role as legislators to uphold and enforce the Constitution, and it is our role as humans to defend those who cannot defend themselves. I urge my colleagues to follow their conscience, support this bill, and do what is right for America and for humanity.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Life at Conception Act. This bill is of utmost importance to future generations in America. Quite simply, it implements equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for every born and pre-born person. It protects Americans' right to life by defining the term ``human person'' as an individual at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of conception.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment grants that no ``state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' Furthermore, it grants ``Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'' It is time that we, the Congress, start enforcing this provision, start defending the Constitution, and start defending American lives.

Even the Justices in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision conceded this point by making the admission: ``If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [Roe], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.'' Our Constitution is designed to protect the rights of all Americans, and give them the right to live and succeed. Right now, significant portions of Americans, who have no voice, are being killed, despite the explicit protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. Since 1973, more than 44 million babies have been sentenced to death without trial. We cannot tolerate this atrocity.

Additionally, a 1999 Wirthlin poll found that 62 percent of Americans support legal abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. How can we stand by and let so many children die even when public opinion is on our side? It is our role as legislators to uphold and enforce the Constitution, and it is our role as humans to defend those who cannot defend themselves. I urge my colleagues to follow their conscience, support this bill, and do what is right for America and for humanity.

Madam President, I applaud the Senator from Wyoming for recognizing what we need to do for jobs in this country. That is the very thing that turns this economy around.

I say to my good friend from Connecticut that it was not a Republican idea; it was a Democratic idea when John Kennedy said the way to increase revenues is to reduce marginal tax rates. That works. That is what is happening now. With this President having inherited a recession which started back in March of 2000, we are now pulling out of it, and we are going to see a dramatic improvement.

I have been listening to this talk on job loss and sending jobs overseas. I know my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Bond have spoken about the impact of asbestos litigation on our economy and the need to pass S. 1125 this year.

I want to reiterate the enormous loss of jobs our country will suffer and the impact on economic growth if something is not done to resolve this problem.

I also want to note a press release from the EPA that says on February 25, several members of Topor Contracting, a demolition and asbestos abatement business in Buffalo, NY, along with the owner of Payco, a pre-demolition asbestos firm in New York, pled guilty to State charges after their firms were involved in the demolition of two buildings in Buffalo, NY. They were charged with falsely stating that asbestos had been removed from the work area.

If asbestos is not removed before demolition begins, those working in the area are susceptible to asbestos exposure. We know, when inhaled, asbestos can cause such fatal illnesses as lung cancer and mesothelioma.

In another, related civil case, the owners of Topor and Payco were permanently barred from conducting asbestos abatement work in New York State.

The New York Area Office of EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the State of New York and the FBI are appropriately investigating this case.

This example shows that asbestos can be controlled appropriately under reasonable law and legal procedures--making excessive lawsuits all the more outrageous.

The U.S. Supreme Court has called asbestos litigation an ``elephantine mass . . . that defies customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation.''

Senior U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein has cautioned:

If the acceleration of asbestos lawsuits continues

unaddressed, it is not impossible that every company with

even a remote connection to asbestos may be driven into

bankruptcy.

Many newspapers and publications have also commented on this crisis and its affects.

The Hartford Courant has said:

Congress must not let this opportunity pass. The

alternative is more chaos, in which additional companies are

driven into bankruptcy, thousands of workers lose their jobs

and those who suffer from asbestos-related illnesses often

wait many years for payments.

Georgia Pacific is a company headquartered in Atlanta, and is one of the world's leading manufacturers of tissue, packaging, paper, building products, pulp, and related chemicals. It sells more than $23 billion in products annually and employs about 61,000 people at 400 locations in North America and Europe. It operates three facilities in Oklahoma, including a building products distribution center in Tulsa and a tissue and a paper production plant in Muskogee. It employs more than 1,600 people in Oklahoma. Its operations generate about $76 million in taxable wages each year in Oklahoma alone.

Before 1977, the company manufactured gypsum products, which contained asbestos fibers. Since that year, it has not used asbestos in any of its products.

Over time, the company as a whole has paid about $629 million to settle over 313,000 asbestos claims. A large portion of these payouts goes to attorneys and to many who aren't actually sick. In fact, about 60 percent of its asbestos claims have been paid to lawyers. Another 20 percent has been paid to people who were not sick. The remaining 20 percent was actually paid to sick people. At the end of 2003, it had over 64,000 pending claims nationally and its payments extended into 2013.

Just yesterday I met with another nationwide company, McDermott International, whose power generation division, Babcock and Wilcox has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In the end, the company and its insurers will pay over $1.6 billion to claimants and lawyers.

Other companies filing for bankruptcy include Weyerhauser--a national paper product manufacturing company with facilities in Oklahoma, Bethlehem Steel, Harbison Walker, North American Refractories, Owens Corning, W.R. Grace & Co., U.S. Gypsum Co., Kaiser Aluminum, and Halliburton's DII Industries unit.

Overall, asbestos litigation has already forced at least 70 companies into bankruptcy--causing the loss of many jobs. According to a report by Joseph Stiglitz in 2002, as many as 60,000 jobs have been lost due to asbestos-related bankruptcies. Employees of these bankrupt companies have seen their 401k's drop by an average of 25 percent.

According to a 2002 report from the RAND Institute for Civil Justice--a bipartisan group--in 1982, litigation cost American businesses $1 billion; in 2000, the total cost of litigation rose to $54 billion; in 2002, litigation costs jumped to over $70 billion.

Forty-seven States--Hawaii, Rhode Island and North Dakota are the only States that do not have a facility affected by asbestos bankruptcy--have at least one facility affected by asbestos bankruptcy.

Workers displaced by asbestos bankruptcies have lost $25,000 to $50,000 in wages.

For every 10 jobs lost in asbestos bankruptcy, a community will lose as many as eight additional jobs. If we do not enact legislation this year, economic growth could be reduced by $2.4 billion per year which could prevent 800,000 jobs from being created and a loss of $64 billion in economic growth over a 27-year period. It could cost businesses up to $210 billion to respond to 500,000 to 2.4 million asbestos claims.

This legislation will guarantee a fair and generous compensation for victims--those are the ones who are really hurt--and will replace the unpredictable court costs with certainty for victims and businesses. It will provide contingent money if the fund runs short or provide money upfront to get the fund running. It protects the claims if the fund runs dry, and it uses no taxpayers' money.

I am not optimistic we will get it passed. There will have to be a wake-up call. Look at what happened a week or so ago. We had the Health for Mothers and Babies Access to Care Act. It was supposed to help get the money to the mothers and babies who need it so much. Trial lawyers won that in the Senate. They got amendments in there that totally destroyed what we were trying to do.

The gun liability bill last week. Standing right next to me was the Senator from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, who has been a hero in this area trying to do something to protect the second amendment rights and to have some type of legislation that would have an effect on reducing the magnitude of lawsuits against gun manufacturers or distributors and in many other areas. With the amendments the trial lawyers were able to get in to protect trial lawyers, it ended up being killed by the very people who introduced it.

I am hoping there has been a wake-up call and this will not happen in the

case of S. 1125 and we will be able to get this thing passed this year. Every month that goes by, every week that goes by, there are more and more lawsuits. Keep in mind, 60 percent of the money has gone to lawyers and 20 percent has gone to people who have not sustained any types of injuries themselves.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to pass S. 1125 as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Let me respond briefly. I did mention the Hartford Courier newspaper that has been aggressive. I knew the Senator was aware of this and actively concerned because his State of Connecticut, which probably is suffering, is in the top three or four States in the United States with problems.

I suggest there is a fourth leg of the stool and that is for trial lawyers to get this work out.

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Bill Pardue, who until recently was the CEO of Lexis Nexis of Dayton, OH, which now owns Dolon Information of Oklahoma City, OK.

I have had the privilege of working with Bill and Lexis Nexis on various initiatives to help secure the homeland, and wanted to say a sincere thank you, on behalf of all Americans to Bill, to Lexis-Nexis, and to the thousands of people who make up that fine company.

I understand the Senator's position. Unfortunately, we do not agree on his preferred solution which is why compromise language was developed and the amendment was modified. I will agree with the Senator that the modified amendment was indeed cleared by both the majority and minority sides of the committee. However, as the Senator notes, this modified amendment was inadvertently left out of the manager's package that was approved by the Senate. I commit to fixing this error at the earliest possible opportunity and will work in conference to protect the Senate position on this issue.

I agree with my colleagues that we ought to fully offset the spending that will occur over the next 6 years as a result of the authorizations in the SAFETEA bill. I am committed to working with my colleagues to see that this goal is achieved.

I say to Senator Murray, the agreed upon level for inclusion in the SAFETEA bill for the Ferry Boat Discretionary Program is $120 million per year of which $60 million is provided in contract authority and $60 million is authorized for appropriation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Nickles and Landrieu, in introducing this bill, which will profoundly impact generations to come. It will clarify who is eligible to become President of the United States of America. The term ``natural born citizen'' as used in the Constitution, would be defined as any person born in the United States, any person born outside the United States to citizen parents, and any foreign-born child adopted by citizen parents.

In the absence of a judicial interpretation of constitutional language, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of constitutional terms. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress used this ability to define ``natural born'' to include children born abroad to citizen parents. Although this language was not kept in the naturalization laws, the ability of Congress to define this term was not challenged.

This bill is intended to further describe the term ``natural born citizen'' as it relates to Presidential qualification. The Framers used this phrase to support the criteria that the President be loyal and faithful to the United States. Children born to military, or State Department parents living abroad have exceeding loyalty to the United States. They should not be punished for their parents' willingness to serve their country abroad.

Furthermore, internationally adopted children should not bear this penalty either. In recent years, the number of children adopted by Americans from overseas has grown to more than 20,000. They are considered ``natural issue'' of their adoptive parents and share a similar loyalty to the United States. These children should have the same rights, duties, responsibilities, and privileges as biological children. They should be able to pursue their dreams.

About two and a half years ago, my daughter adopted a little girl from Ethiopia. While my granddaughter shares most freedoms granted by the Constitution with her biologically born brothers, including the freedom of speech, the freedom to worship, and the freedom to pursue happiness, she does not have the freedom to pursue any job she wants. Without this interpretation she does not have the freedom to run for President of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill to allow all American citizens, no matter where they are born, an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams, including to run for President of the United States.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Nickles and Landrieu, in introducing this bill, which will profoundly impact generations to come. It will clarify who is eligible to become President of the United States of America. The term ``natural born citizen'' as used in the Constitution, would be defined as any person born in the United States, any person born outside the United States to citizen parents, and any foreign-born child adopted by citizen parents.

In the absence of a judicial interpretation of constitutional language, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of constitutional terms. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress used this ability to define ``natural born'' to include children born abroad to citizen parents. Although this language was not kept in the naturalization laws, the ability of Congress to define this term was not challenged.

This bill is intended to further describe the term ``natural born citizen'' as it relates to Presidential qualification. The Framers used this phrase to support the criteria that the President be loyal and faithful to the United States. Children born to military, or State Department parents living abroad have exceeding loyalty to the United States. They should not be punished for their parents' willingness to serve their country abroad.

Furthermore, internationally adopted children should not bear this penalty either. In recent years, the number of children adopted by Americans from overseas has grown to more than 20,000. They are considered ``natural issue'' of their adoptive parents and share a similar loyalty to the United States. These children should have the same rights, duties, responsibilities, and privileges as biological children. They should be able to pursue their dreams.

About two and a half years ago, my daughter adopted a little girl from Ethiopia. While my granddaughter shares most freedoms granted by the Constitution with her biologically born brothers, including the freedom of speech, the freedom to worship, and the freedom to pursue happiness, she does not have the freedom to pursue any job she wants. Without this interpretation she does not have the freedom to run for President of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill to allow all American citizens, no matter where they are born, an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams, including to run for President of the United States.

Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that a cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office to accompany Senate Report 108-222, the committee report to S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, be printed in the Record. The estimate was not available when the report was filed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works.