Floor Statements

There are many issues on which we have made progress during my tenure as both chair and ranking member of the EPW Committee, and many issues on which we need to take steps forward. I want to thank Senator Boxer for her consistent leadership on environmental issues over the years, and I know she will do a phenomenal job leading the EPW Committee. There is an issue of great importance to many small Vermont farmers that we have not addressed this year, and that is the issue of concentrated animal feeding operations and CERCLA. I have written to Senator Boxer and provided her with some language reflecting the ideas I described in my statement, asking her to consider this approach as she holds hearings and moves forward on this issue in the 110th Congress.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about two issues that are of great importance to Vermonters--sustainable agriculture and environmental protections. Over the years, I have fought for education dollars when it seemed none were available. I have fought to protect the environment when its champions were few. But my greatest priority has been to find ways to ensure that Vermont agriculture, the lifeblood of our economy and our culture, remains sustainable and competitive into the future.

I have worked successfully in both the House and the Senate to help assure dairy farmers of a fair and stable price for their milk, through the dairy compact and MILC Program. I have worked hard to provide strong Federal support for conservation programs, helping farmers to be good stewards of the land, while never comprising my commitment to environmental protection. I have supported the cider and cheese industries in the face of increasing Federal regulation and have promoted tax policy that allows for the intergenerational transfer of farms.

Today, I stand before you somewhat perplexed. For several months now, two of the issues where I have dedicated the majority of my time in public service--the environment and agriculture--have been seemingly at odds with one another.

In some States, lawsuits have been brought against large agricultural operations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, CERCLA. I have been contacted by a number of Vermont farmers very concerned about whether CERCLA applies to them and about what it would mean to be sued under this law.

In response to this concern, proposals have been made that would unnecessarily adopt expansive exemptions from the Superfund statute for major pollution streams stemming from very large agricultural operations. I cannot support these proposals that would eliminate one of the tools of last resort for communities with waters contaminated by large-scale animal feeding operations.

I have watched with regret as the face of American agriculture in some regions has changed from one of the individual family, working hard to extract their living from their land, to one of the corporate executive, leading massive agribusiness operations. With this type of consolidation, we have lost in many places, though not in Vermont, the reality of the hard-working family farming using sustainable practices. In many parts of the Nation, we see massive animal feeding operations, often controlled by corporate interests located outside the State, contributing significantly to local water quality problems. Allowing these large operations to simply walk away from the damage that they can cause to our local communities allows them to cut costs, tipping the economic scales in their favor when compared with smaller farms that have less environmental impacts. I wish to do everything in my power to ensure that this scenario never becomes the norm in Vermont.

Vermonters have a long tradition of strong feelings about water quality. In 1972, when the Clean Water Act was adopted by Congress, our Nation was faced with a water pollution crisis. Toxic materials were routinely dumped into pristine water bodies by industrial polluters. It was standard practice in municipalities to have underground pipes deliver raw sewage from homes directly into rivers and streams without any intervening treatment. Citizens demanded action to solve our environmental problems. In 1970, I was the state attorney general of Vermont. My office worked to create Vermont Act 252, which enacted the toughest water pollution laws in the country at the time. I had the honor of testifying before this Committee during Senator Muskie's chairmanship during the first phases of the debate on the 1972 Clean Water Act. Some of the concepts in Act 252 are today part of Federal water pollution laws. One of my fondest memories from this period is of the slogan, ``Jeffords Won't Let Them Do it in the Lake,'' which came about as we successfully fought off efforts by International Paper to dump untreated waste into Lake Champlain.

Despite progress on wastewater treatment and point sources of pollution like International Paper, by the mid-1980s, it was clear that without action on other water quality issues such as toxics like mercury and nonpoint source pollution from urban and agricultural sources, we would not be able to meet our clean water goals. In 1987, our own Senator Stafford of Vermont worked with champions like Senator John Chafee, Senator Mitchell, and Senator Bentsen to write the 1987 Clean Water Act amendments, overcoming the third Presidential veto in the act's history. Many of the key pieces of the 1987 amendments, in particular, nonpoint source pollution, continue to resonate in our clean water debate today.

Despite our progress on these issues, there is much to be done. According to the EPA, the overwhelming majority of the population of the United States--218 million people--live within 10 miles of a polluted river, lake or coastal water. Almost 40 percent of these waters are not safe for fishing, swimming, boating, drinking water or other needs. The EPA estimates that nonpoint sources of pollution are responsible for 50 percent of our water quality problems.

I discuss this history because it is relevant. I understand the impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution on water quality. I also understand the importance of small-sca1e farming to my home State of Vermont, and I do not believe that CERCLA is well suited, or was ever intended, to apply to the normal operations on Vermont-scale farms.

I am here today with my colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer, who will be taking over the helm of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I know that the committee will be in good hands.

I have written to Senator Boxer and asked her to consider an alternative approach that I have put together on this issue of animal manure and CERCLA during the Committee's deliberations on this issue in the 110th Congress. This proposal takes steps to equalize the playing field between

smaller, Vermont-scale farms and large-scale agriculture. It would clarify that the normal application of fertilizer as described in the CERCLA statute includes the use of animal manure as fertilizer. I wrote to the EPA earlier this year asking them to take regulatory action for that purpose and they refused.

The proposal does not change the existing provision in CERCLA, which provides that Federal permitholders, when they are in compliance with their permit, are not subject to CERCLA litigation. Existing law ensures that larger animal feeding operations that will be required to hold Clean Water Act permits and are more likely to have significant waste streams should be protected from CERCLA litigation as long as they are in compliance with the terms of their permit. My legislation takes steps to provide similar assurances to smaller, Vermont-scale farms that are generally not required to hold Clean Water Act permits. It provides that an independent, third-party certification that a farm has applied fertilizer to land in a manner that is in compliance with its nutrient management plan would serve as evidence for an affirmative defense in the unlikely event that a CERCLA lawsuit would be filed against a small, Vermont-scale farm. I offer this extra assurance, even though there is no record of farms of this scale having been sued under CERCLA, and even though such a lawsuit is an unlikely event given the amount of material being handled at these small facilities and the structure of CERCLA, which is designed to address major waste streams. Federal Officials and Environmental advocates understand, I think, that resorting to a Superfund lawsuit to gain compliance from a small farm would be like using a sledge hammer to open a walnut.

Some have asked me: What does that actually get you? The independent third-party certification offered as evidence during the course of any civil or administrative proceeding would support the fact that the facility properly used or applied animal manure to land in compliance with its nutrient management plan. This presumption of fact could only be overcome by contradictory evidence. I believe that the establishment of this affirmative defense will protect Vermont small-scale farmers from CERCLA litigation.

Mr. President, I will not be here in the next Congress to help my colleagues find a way forward on this issue. I offer this idea as a starting point in the debate after much discussion with Vermonters, farmers, environmentalists, and legal and policy experts. We are all seeking the silver bullet that will help to maintain the American tradition of the small, family farm and allow us to make forward progress on the persistent problem of nonpoint source pollution. This idea is my vision of how we can overcome this latest hurdle in our efforts to effectively deal with nonpoint source pollution and hopefully bridge the gap between two of my passions--sustainable, Vermont-scale agriculture, and environmental progress.

Mr. President, today the Senate is acting on H.R. 798 Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act, with an amendment developed by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith. This legislation is designed to assist communities perform preliminary site assessments and remediate former methamphetamine, or meth, labs.

The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, to develop voluntary guidelines for communities engaged in meth remediation activities. The guidelines would help communities identify contaminants from meth labs and establish appropriate cleanup levels. In implementing this legislation, it is my hope that the EPA should also issue companion regulations that would assist communities in implementing these voluntary guidelines. These regulations should identify contaminants from meth labs, establish appropriate cleanup levels, address sampling activities in the residences, training and certification for response workers, and use of personal protective equipment.

There is a need for regulations and a Federal cleanup standard, in addition to voluntary guidelines, because of the nature and abundance of waste produced from meth labs. Many of the chemicals and wastes often associated with meth production are considered hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA. Some of these wastes are classified under RCRA as ``characteristic'' waste, meaning that they are ignitable. Other wastes produced by the manufacture of meth are regulated in other sections of law, such as the solvents and other chemicals used in the purification process.

The reason companion regulation is needed is meth's toxicity. One pound of manufactured meth produces 5 pounds of waste. Chemicals used in meth production cause breathing problems, skin irritation, headaches, damage to the central nervous system, and, in some cases, death. Meth waste is typically dumped on the ground or down drains, which contaminates drain fields, soils and surface waters. Cleanup usually involves the removal and disposal of wastes and the ventilation and plumbing systems.

Several States have already developed standards and regulations for cleanup and for determining if a meth-contaminated property is ``clean.'' Oregon's level is 0.5 micrograms per square foot. And the State of Tennessee has set a level that is 0.1 microgram per hundred square centimeters. EPA should follow suit.

Ten years ago, EPA developed extensive regulations for the remediation of lead based paint waste. Waste from meth labs appears to present a more immediate public safety concern. EPA should develop the same type of comprehensive regulations to address sampling and worker protection, and should do all it can to assist our communities in these efforts.

I object. I agree that wastewater security is an important issue. In fact, it is made even more important because the Homeland Security appropriations conferees have exempted these facilities from security requirements--a decision that I understand was due in large part to the Senator's opposition to including these facilities within the protections of that bill.

Although I would like to have seen stronger chemical security provisions than those I understand are forthcoming from the Homeland Security appropriations conference, I anticipate supporting that measure. I would support including wastewater facilities in that measure. But I will not support a bill like S. 2781 that provides weaker protections.

By contrast, I long ago introduced S. 1995, The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2005. I feel certain that if I asked unanimous consent to pass this bill, the Senator would object to my request. I prefer a more constructive pathway to providing essential protection to our communities.

We should fill this gap in our Nation's security, and in order to do so, we need full and fair opportunity to offer amendments to cure the serious deficiencies in this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert a statement in the Record concerning my objection to consideration of the Wastewater Security bill.

Mr. President, even a diehard Red Sox fan has to give the devil his due. Probably the most moving moment in the history of baseball was when longtime New York Yankees first baseman Lou Gehrig walked on the field to accept the tribute of his fans and teammates. On Independence Day in 1939, he told the crowd at Yankee Stadium that he considered himself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth.

I consider myself pretty lucky, too. I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1974. That was not the best year to be a Republican candidate. Out of an enormous freshman class of 92 new Members, which included Chris Dodd and Tom Harkin, only 17 of us were Republicans. And as Chuck Grassley and I walked down the aisle of the House, he with crutches and I with a neck brace, one Democrat muttered: There's two we almost got.

Time has gotten just about all of us. With my retirement and that of Henry Hyde in the House, Chuck Grassley next year will become the last remaining Member of the Republican class of

1974, an iron horse in his own right. The silver lining for me in the electoral losses suffered by the Republicans was a chance to land senior positions on the Agriculture and Education Subcommittees that would quickly throw me into the thick of things. Throughout my career in the House, I focused on those two issues.

In 1988, with the retirement of Bob Stafford, I ran for and won a seat in the Senate. Senator Stafford was a tough act to follow. He had held just about every office in the State of Vermont and had an enormous impact on the Federal policy for education, the environment, and elsewhere. I was lucky when I got to the Senate that there were openings on both the Education and Environment Committees.

Early on, I learned what the Senate can be at its best. In 1989, Congress was in the midst of reauthorizing the Clean Air Act. Even though I was a freshman, the door was open for anyone who had the time and interest. As John Chafee, George Mitchell, and the rest of us forged a strong renewal of the Clean Air Act, I realized these were the moments I enjoyed most. I realized these were the moments I enjoyed most when smart and committed people worked together to solve tough problems and improve the lot for Americans. Every year since has provided similar moments, from rebuilding our roads to rewriting our food and drug laws.

Probably the biggest and the most rewarding challenge for me has been in the area of education. From my first year in the House when we enacted the Education of the Handicapped Act, to work that continues today on the Higher Education Act, I have tried to do my best to ensure that every child is given the opportunity to reach his or her potential.

There is plenty of work left to be done to reach this goal, and nowhere is that more true than in the District of Columbia. A decade ago, Congress stepped in to try and help the District resolve the problems plaguing its overall budget and its schools in particular. As chair of the DC Appropriations Subcommittee, I helped lead that effort. The city is to be commended for its record of fiscal responsibility in the years since, and I hope the superintendent, the new mayor, the council, and the school board will be able to make similar progress in improving the city's school system.

While Vermont has always been home, I have lived in the District of Columbia since coming to Washington. Luckily, I have never lost the ability to be moved by the sight of the Capitol dome. Its majesty struck me when I first came to Washington and it still does today. Under that dome and in the buildings around it work thousands of good people. We are all privileged to work with a whole host of people who get too little recognition, from the person recording my words, to the people who put them in the Congressional Record while we sleep--not always easy tasks, in my case.

Ours, too, is not always an easy task. I know it is hard for the public to understand the reality of life in the Congress, but the continual travel, the campaigns, and the unpredictable hours of our jobs can take a toll on our families. I have been blessed with two wonderful children, Laura and Leonard, who are here with me today, and a feisty, funny, and an incredibly strong wife, Liz. They have had to put up with an awful lot over the years so that I could serve Vermont.

Three decades is a blink of an eye in history, but what a tremendous period of change in our country we have been through. When I came to Washington, we were only three decades removed from the Second World War. My childhood heroes were heroes of that war, and it seemed as though every family had a father or son or uncle who served and sacrificed in that war. But when I came to Washington, an entirely different war was being waged in Southeast Asia. Vietnam has colored much of our thinking since. Whether Vietnam had too much or too little influence upon the ensuing three decades is a much larger debate, but we would be better served in world affairs today by being less haughty and more humble.

I regret that my departure from Congress, like my arrival, finds our country at war. Young and even not so young Americans are sacrificing life and limb while the rest of us are making little or no sacrifice. It seems to me the very least we should do is pay today for the fiscal costs of our policies. Instead, we are floating IOUs written on our children's future. This year we have no budget, and we are unwilling even to debate most of our basic spending bills before the November election. Thirty years from now, we could well face the biggest crisis in government since the Civil War, if Congress and the White House do not adopt a more honest approach to government.

The basic compact between generations is being broken. F.D.R. was right to borrow heavily to finance World War II, but are we justified in doing so today?

Earlier this month, I was privileged to attend the dedication of a monument in Virginia commemorating the sacrifice of more than 1,200 men of the Vermont Brigade during the battle of the wilderness. The tangled thickets of the 19th century have given way to mature forests. The individuals are largely forgotten, but our collective memory must endure. Today, we use blocks of granite to remind us of the sacrifices of the Civil War. In its immediate aftermath you would think no such reminder would have been needed. But 140 years ago, so the story goes, a northern Congressman literally waved a bloody shirt before his colleagues to inflame them against the South for alleged misdeeds. True patriotism is the incredible bravery of those men whose too-brief lives ended on that wilderness battlefield. Waving the bloody shirt then or today is anything but patriotic.

The beautiful Capitol dome above us, completed even as the Civil War concluded, should serve to inspire us. I am an optimist and have been every day of my life. With Lincoln, I hope that the mystic cords of memory will stretch from every battlefield and patriot grave to the hearts of the living, and that we will soon again be touched by the better angels of our nature.

Mr. President, I wish you and all of my colleagues good luck and Godspeed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their very generous and kind comments. Their remarks remind me--all of us--the Senate is a family. I also thank my colleagues for their friendship. I am honored to be able to serve with you, especially you, I say to Senator Rockefeller.

You have been very kind to me over the years. I have followed your guidance, and it has been good. I thank all of my colleagues for their friendship and am honored to serve with you. And as I go forward--I don't know--I am going to wonder why I am going forward and not just staying with you.

Mr. President, now I guess we should proceed with the process that is normal. I thank the leader.

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to pay tribute to Dr. Arthur Sauvigne, a doctor who has made it his life's work to care for veterans. Dr. Sauvigne, known to most everyone as Art, has decided to retire from tha Veterans' Administration after 33 years of remarkable service. His most recent role has been as chief of staff at the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, VT. Although we have been assured that he will continue to treat veterans in a part- time capacity at the VA, I take this moment to honor him for his years of dedicated service.

Art began his VA career as a resident in internal medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. I like to think that Art's commitment to caring for veterans began with this residency because he has stayed with the VA in many different capacities ever since. Over the past 33 years he has held the following positions at the White River Junction VA: staff physician, associate chief of staff for ambulatory care, director of the emergency room, acting primary care service line manager, and acting specialty and acute care service line manager. Art became chief of staff in 1997.

In the time that my staff and I have known Art, we have been amazed at his breadth of medical and administrative knowledge and impressed by his vision. It seems that his ideas on improving service to veterans-- especially veterans in rural areas--have, once implemented, served as national models. One needs only spend 10 minutes with Art to get the true sense of his passion for delivering service to veterans in their community. In fact, the White River Junction VA was a pioneer in his arena. Long before the Congressional mandate and establishment of the Community Based Outpatient Clinic, CBOC, a mobile clinic housed in a motor coach began seeing patients in 1989. In 1991, a small one-room clinic housed in the Burlington, VT, Vet Center became the predecessor of future CBOC's.

Art also has a firm belief that the VA, as a Government-run health care system, has a greater calling and higher need to provide excellence in care to its customers. He has long been involved in designing and implementing systems to improve customer services. Over the years, Art has actively endorsed and in many cases taken the lead in establishing standards of clinical practice, improving access, advancing types of services, and promoting the education of future health care providers.

Art's hard work was recognized when the White River Junction VA Medical Center was awarded the Veterans Health Administration's Robert W. Carey Organizational Excellence Award in 2002 and 2003 at the ``Achievement level.'' The White River Junction VA was awarded the Carey Award at the ``Trophy level'' in 2004 and was the ``Circle of Excellence'' winner in 2005. Art would tell you this recognition had little to do with him and everything to do with the incredible staff at the White River Junction VA, but I think his leadership made it a much easier journey.

Art's departure as chief of staff will leave a huge void. His indomitable spirit and limitless energy, even when faced by mind- numbing bureaucratic inertia, are irreplaceable. He will be hugely missed. However, we are grateful that he will still be caring for Vermont and New Hampshire veterans on a part-time basis in a role he still relishes--as a VA doctor.

My staff and I wish Art the very best in his well-deserved retirement. We also want to thank Art's wife Shirley and his family for sharing Art's time and energy with us through the years. I believe I can speak for all Vermont veterans when I say that we are deeply grateful to Art for making the VA health care system a more caring and professional place for veterans.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006.

One of the most important issues facing mankind is the problem of global warming. Global warming is real and it is already happening. Its effects are being felt across the globe and the longer we delay, the more severe these effects will be. The broad consensus within the scientific community is that global warming has begun, is largely the result of human activity, and is accelerating. Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have risen to 378 parts per million, nearly one- third above preindustrial levels and higher than at any time during the past 400,000 years. Projections indicate that stabilizing concentrations at 450 parts per million would still mean a temperature increase of 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Such warming will result in more extreme weather, increased flooding and drought, disruption of agricultural and water systems, threats to human health and loss of sensitive species and ecosystems.

In order to prevent and minimize these effects, we must take global actions to address this issue as soon as possible. We owe that to ourselves and to future generations.

The overwhelming majority of Americans support taking some form of action on climate change. I am today introducing the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, which I believe responds to that call. I believe this is the most far-reaching and forward-thinking climate change bill ever introduced. It sets a goal of an 80 percent reduction in global warming pollutants by 2050. It provides a roadmap for actions that we will need to take over the next few decades to combat global warming. I believe that if this bill were passed, it would put us on the path to potentially solving the global warming problem. If it were passed, we would reshape our economy to become more energy independent, cleaner, and more economically competitive. If it were passed, we would have a chance of avoiding some of the worst and most

dangerous effects of global warming. If it were passed, we would be in a position to negotiate with other countries as part of the global solution.

Some will say that this bill imposes requirements that ask too much of industry. Some will say that this bill contains requirements that we cannot easily meet. I say first of all that the costs of inaction vastly outweigh the costs of action and that we have a responsibility to future generations not to leave the Earth far worse off than when we found it--with a fundamentally altered climate system. Temperature changes, sea level rise, hurricanes, floods, and droughts can affect food production, national security, the spread of disease, and the survival of endangered species. These are not things to trifle with on the basis of industry cost estimates, which have frequently been overstated.

But perhaps more importantly, we can act to reduce global warming. We can reduce emissions to 1990 levels between now and 2020 through a reduction of just 2 percent per year. Energy efficiency alone could play a major part in reaching reductions, and new technologies can help as well. Moreover, additional deployment of existing renewable energy sources, including biofuels, can also help substantially. If we were to take the actions suggested in this bill, we would find that we would enhance our energy independence, and we would become a world leader in clean energy technologies. American innovation can position us as the world leader in clean technologies.

In my final year in the Senate, I have often asked myself, What lasting actions can I take to make the world a better place? I hope that by proposing real action on climate change, and passing the torch to a new generation of those committed to protecting the environment, that I can help make a difference for us all. Global warming is upon us now. The question is, Can we take action now, before it is too late?

We know what we need to do, we know how much we must reduce, and we have the technology to do so. The question for this body is, Do we have the political will? Can we overcome our fears and insecurity and act decisively to combat global warming? That is the opportunity and challenge of the coming years, which my bill on global warming seeks to address. I urge my colleagues to join me in the quest for a better, safer world that is free of the enormous threat posed by dangerous global warming. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006.

One of the most important issues facing mankind is the problem of global warming. Global warming is real and it is already happening. Its effects are being felt across the globe and the longer we delay, the more severe these effects will be. The broad consensus within the scientific community is that global warming has begun, is largely the result of human activity, and is accelerating. Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have risen to 378 parts per million, nearly one- third above preindustrial levels and higher than at any time during the past 400,000 years. Projections indicate that stabilizing concentrations at 450 parts per million would still mean a temperature increase of 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Such warming will result in more extreme weather, increased flooding and drought, disruption of agricultural and water systems, threats to human health and loss of sensitive species and ecosystems.

In order to prevent and minimize these effects, we must take global actions to address this issue as soon as possible. We owe that to ourselves and to future generations.

The overwhelming majority of Americans support taking some form of action on climate change. I am today introducing the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, which I believe responds to that call. I believe this is the most far-reaching and forward-thinking climate change bill ever introduced. It sets a goal of an 80 percent reduction in global warming pollutants by 2050. It provides a roadmap for actions that we will need to take over the next few decades to combat global warming. I believe that if this bill were passed, it would put us on the path to potentially solving the global warming problem. If it were passed, we would reshape our economy to become more energy independent, cleaner, and more economically competitive. If it were passed, we would have a chance of avoiding some of the worst and most

dangerous effects of global warming. If it were passed, we would be in a position to negotiate with other countries as part of the global solution.

Some will say that this bill imposes requirements that ask too much of industry. Some will say that this bill contains requirements that we cannot easily meet. I say first of all that the costs of inaction vastly outweigh the costs of action and that we have a responsibility to future generations not to leave the Earth far worse off than when we found it--with a fundamentally altered climate system. Temperature changes, sea level rise, hurricanes, floods, and droughts can affect food production, national security, the spread of disease, and the survival of endangered species. These are not things to trifle with on the basis of industry cost estimates, which have frequently been overstated.

But perhaps more importantly, we can act to reduce global warming. We can reduce emissions to 1990 levels between now and 2020 through a reduction of just 2 percent per year. Energy efficiency alone could play a major part in reaching reductions, and new technologies can help as well. Moreover, additional deployment of existing renewable energy sources, including biofuels, can also help substantially. If we were to take the actions suggested in this bill, we would find that we would enhance our energy independence, and we would become a world leader in clean energy technologies. American innovation can position us as the world leader in clean technologies.

In my final year in the Senate, I have often asked myself, What lasting actions can I take to make the world a better place? I hope that by proposing real action on climate change, and passing the torch to a new generation of those committed to protecting the environment, that I can help make a difference for us all. Global warming is upon us now. The question is, Can we take action now, before it is too late?

We know what we need to do, we know how much we must reduce, and we have the technology to do so. The question for this body is, Do we have the political will? Can we overcome our fears and insecurity and act decisively to combat global warming? That is the opportunity and challenge of the coming years, which my bill on global warming seeks to address. I urge my colleagues to join me in the quest for a better, safer world that is free of the enormous threat posed by dangerous global warming. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold-McCain amendment on the Army Corps of Engineers' independent peer review, which I am proud to cosponsor.

For years, we have heard from a variety of reports about the need for reforming the Corps, reports that Senator Feingold has elaborated on in his statement.

I thank him for his leadership in this issue. In fact, Senator Feingold has been a leader on this issue for many years. Through his efforts, an amendment was included in the last water resources bill in 2000 directing the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a 1-year study on peer review. In the 107th Congress, Senator Feingold introduced a comprehensive Corps reform bill and the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on it.

While development of the bill before the Senate today was a bi- partisan effort, independent reviews, mitigation and planning, and issues considered Corps reform, were not negotiated by the bill's managers.

However, in the previous Congress, the managers were able to reach a compromise agreement on these issues, including peer review, which I offered during committee consideration of this bill, but it did not prevail.

Since committee consideration of the bill, some improvements have been made to the planning provisions of the bill, due to the work of Senator Feingold, and I want to thank him for working with the managers to incorporate those revisions.

I think many believe there should be independent peer review of Corps projects, the debate is over what form that review should take and which projects should be reviewed.

In fact, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Woodley, on March 31, 2004, in testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee stated:

The concept of requiring a peer review is something that

should be addressed. We are supportive of requiring outside

independent peer review of certain Corps projects. Peer

review, where appropriate, would be a very useful tool and

add significant credibility to the Corps project analyses and

to our ability to judge the merits of a project.

I think the Feingold-McCain amendment provides the strong, truly independent peer review that is needed to assure that taxpayer dollars are being spent on projects that have had the utmost scrutiny and unbiased review. The Inhofe/Bond amendment does not.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Yes.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Montana, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. President, while we have a moment I would like to take some time to thank the staff from the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Senator Inhofe's staff is first class, including Ruth Van Mark, Andrew Wheeler, Angie Giancarlo, Stephen Aaron, and many others.

Senator Bond's lead staffer Letmon Lee has done excellent work on this bill.

Paul Wilkins and Sara Roberts from Senator Baucus' staff also contributed extensively to this product.

From my staff, Ken Connolly, Alison Taylor, Margaret Weatherald, and Caroline Ahearn have been tremendous.

But most importantly I wanted to recognize two staff people who have worked for years and years on Army Corps issues and specifically this bill.

First, Catharine Cyr Ransom. Catharine is an exceptional Senate staffer. She works hard, is fair, and a joy to work with. She also is very persistent and has made sure that my little State of Vermont has been looked after in this legislation.

Finally, JoEllen Darcy, who has been with the Committee 12 years, and has lived through this WRDA process for her entire tenure, is a true gem. JoEllen has an incredible record of legislative success on the Environment and Public Works Committee due to her depth of knowledge, kind manner, and strong negotiating skills. She is also an avid Red Sox fan, which says a lot about her character and why I like her so much.

I thank all the staff for their work and for all their work through the August recess on this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator for his remarks. It has been a privilege to work with him. We got some things done.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, the Water Resources Development Act is critically important for our nation because it provides our States and local jurisdictions with the support they need to manage their water resources, and improve flood and storm control damage protection.

The Senate's passage of this legislation maintains our commitment to the protection of our rivers, streams and lakes.

And it also maintains our commitment to protect our aquatic ecosystems, which are so delicate and yet so vital to critical species.

I am proud that the Senate will pass a good, comprehensive bill that also includes key coastal restoration and hurricane projects to further assist the rebuilding efforts in the State of Louisiana following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I am also very proud that my State of Vermont will receive important project authorizations, including restoration programs for the upper Connecticut River; the repair, remediation and removal of small dams throughout the State; and the construction of a dispersal barrier to protect Lake Champlain from invasive species.

As we stand on the verge of passing the Water Resources Development Act, I would once again like to thank Chairman Inhofe for his leadership. We would not be at this point without his persistence and hard work.

I would also like to thank Senators Baucus and Bond for their hard work in advancing this bill.

Mr. President, it may have taken us six long years to get here, but the impact of this bill will be felt for decades to come.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it moves through conference.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, first, I commend my partner for the cooperation we have had on this bill.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

This amendment has been cleared on our side.

Mr. President, while we are nearing completion of this bill, I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the projects in the bill for my State of Vermont.

Throughout our work on this bill, I have worked to find a way to use the Army Corps of Engineers' expertise in a series of ``Vermont style'' projects. I believe we have succeeded.

This bill would provide $67 million in new authorities for the State of Vermont. Vermonters identified four major priorities for the Corps during my discussions with them: keep Vermont projects in the Vermont style, continue ongoing Lake Champlain efforts, address Connecticut River issues, and find a way to repair or eliminate the thousands of small dams throughout the State creating flood hazards and causing ecosystem damage. This bill addresses each of these areas.

First, during our discussion on the WRDA bill, I advocated strongly for an increase in the authorization for small ecosystem restoration projects like those in Vermont. In this bill, we increase that program from $25 million to $50 million, allowing smaller, Vermont-scale projects to move forward.

Second, we have continued our ongoing support of the Lake Champlain program, authorized in WRDA 2000, by adding $2 million in authority for geographic mapping and $10 million for streambank stabilization projects to protect water quality. We also authorize a study of the Lake Champlain Canal dispersal barrier to help prevent invasive species from entering the lake.

Third, this bill includes major changes for the Connecticut River. We authorize $30 million for modifications to existing Corps dams on the Connecticut River to regulate flow and temperature to mitigate impacts on aquatic habitat and fisheries. The bill also includes a $20 million authorization for ecosystem restoration on the Upper Connecticut River and $5 million for a wetlands restoration partnership.

Finally, the WRDA bill includes both nationwide and Vermont-specific programs for small dam remediation, removal, and rehabilitation. I authored a continuing authority for small dams that allows $25 million to be used for small dam removal or rehabilitation. I joined my colleagues, Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as a cosponsor of this provision as a stand-alone bill, S. 1887. In addition, the existing Vermont dams remediation authority is expanded to allow for measures to restore, protect, and preserve an ecosystem affected by one of the dams included in the program.

When I first took over as chairman of this Committee in 2001, I started working with the State of Vermont to identify how we could get the Corps more involved in Vermont. At first blush, this seemed counterintuitive to me, and to many Vermonters. After all, early on in my career as the States attorney general, I led efforts to derail several major flood control dams proposed by the Corps for the Moose River, White River, and Saxtons River.

Did we really want to open the door again? At the time, my answer was, and still remains, a guarded yes.

In my opening statement when WRDA reached the Senate floor on Tuesday, I referenced some of the reforms contained in the underlying bill as well as some of the amendments proposed by Senator Feingold that will further improve the Corps. However, over the last 30 years, the Corps has made much progress. Ecosystem restoration is a defined mission area. Continuing authorities programs allow small-scale projects, like the ones usually found in Vermont, to proceed without the excessive bureaucracy that smallest States tend to dread.

Beginning in 2003, I held a series of annual workshops with the New England and the New York districts, the State of Vermont, and local stakeholders at multiple locations in Vermont. The first year we were in Bennington, Norwich, and Barrer, and the second year we were in Norwich and Burlington.

The projects included in this bill for Vermont are a direct result of those workshops, and I thank everyone who helped make them possible. Specifically, I thank LTC Brian Green, Acting New England District Commander; John Kennelly, Chief of Planning, and Bobby Byrne, Chief of Programs and Civil Project Management with the New England District.

With the New York District, I thank COL John O'Dowd, the former District Commander; COL Richard Polo, the current District Commander; Gene Brickman, Deputy Chief of the Planning Division; Paul Tumminello, the Waterbury Dam Project Manager; and Jason Shea, the Lake Champlain Basin Program Coordinator.

In addition, from the North Atlantic Division, BG Bo Temple, the former Division Commander; Joseph Vietri, the Planning Director; and Stuart Piken, the former Project Management Chief at Division and the current New York District Deputy District Engineer for Project Management.

Finally, I thank Rob Vining, formerly with Army Corps Headquarters.

Mr. President, I especially thank my colleagues on the EPW Committee, particularly Senators Baucus, Bond, and Inhofe, for working with me on these critical priorities, and I look forward to the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2006.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I commend the Senator for his statement. I concur with him wholeheartedly. Let's get on with it.

Mr. President, I have long been a proponent of measures that support historic preservation and economic development. In keeping with that tradition, I rise today to introduce the National Historic Country Store Preservation and Revitalization Act of 2006.

This bill establishes a national program to support historic country store preservation and will aid in the revitalization of rural villages and community centers nationwide.

For many Americans, the country store brings to mind days that have since passed, before much of this country became stamped with shopping malls and the ``big-box'' store. But for thousands of people living in Vermont and for millions more living in rural communities across the United States, a visit to the local country store is a regular part of one's daily life.

In my hometown of Shrewsbury, VT, the Pierce Store was the hub of our small community when my wife Liz and I settled there in 1963. Run by the four Pierce siblings--Marjorie, Glendon, Marion and Gordon--the store was the place to go for a neighborly chat as much as for your milk and butter. Unfortunately, the Pierce Store closed its doors some years back and Shrewsbury lost a vital part of its identity.

Yet while some country stores have been forced to close their doors, others have shown incredible resiliency.

They have survived floods and fires, overcome economic downturns, and reformulated their inventories to meet modern needs. According to the Vermont Grocers' Association, country stores account for an estimated $55 million annually in retail sales in Vermont alone.

But with increased competition and additional costs to maintain aging structures, today's remaining country store owners are hard-pressed to overcome these unprecedented challenges.

My legislation authorizes the U.S. Economic Development Administration to make grants to national, state and local agencies and non-profit organizations to support historic country store preservation efforts. In addition, the bill establishes a revolving loan fund. The fund will be used for research, restoration work that will improve our understanding of existing needs and provide the assistance required to address them. The bill promotes the study of best practices for preserving structures, improving profitability and promoting collaboration among country store owners.

My legislation unites small business development and historic preservation principles to sustain these invaluable community institutions. I encourage my colleagues to join me in my efforts to protect our rural heritage by preventing the further loss of our Nation's historic country stores.

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

Mr. President, I have long been a proponent of measures that support historic preservation and economic development. In keeping with that tradition, I rise today to introduce the National Historic Country Store Preservation and Revitalization Act of 2006.

This bill establishes a national program to support historic country store preservation and will aid in the revitalization of rural villages and community centers nationwide.

For many Americans, the country store brings to mind days that have since passed, before much of this country became stamped with shopping malls and the ``big-box'' store. But for thousands of people living in Vermont and for millions more living in rural communities across the United States, a visit to the local country store is a regular part of one's daily life.

In my hometown of Shrewsbury, VT, the Pierce Store was the hub of our small community when my wife Liz and I settled there in 1963. Run by the four Pierce siblings--Marjorie, Glendon, Marion and Gordon--the store was the place to go for a neighborly chat as much as for your milk and butter. Unfortunately, the Pierce Store closed its doors some years back and Shrewsbury lost a vital part of its identity.

Yet while some country stores have been forced to close their doors, others have shown incredible resiliency.

They have survived floods and fires, overcome economic downturns, and reformulated their inventories to meet modern needs. According to the Vermont Grocers' Association, country stores account for an estimated $55 million annually in retail sales in Vermont alone.

But with increased competition and additional costs to maintain aging structures, today's remaining country store owners are hard-pressed to overcome these unprecedented challenges.

My legislation authorizes the U.S. Economic Development Administration to make grants to national, state and local agencies and non-profit organizations to support historic country store preservation efforts. In addition, the bill establishes a revolving loan fund. The fund will be used for research, restoration work that will improve our understanding of existing needs and provide the assistance required to address them. The bill promotes the study of best practices for preserving structures, improving profitability and promoting collaboration among country store owners.

My legislation unites small business development and historic preservation principles to sustain these invaluable community institutions. I encourage my colleagues to join me in my efforts to protect our rural heritage by preventing the further loss of our Nation's historic country stores.

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

Mr. President, I say thank you to the Senator. It is a pleasure to work with you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to see the Water Resources Development Act of 2006 finally being considered on the Senate floor. This critical water resources bill is long overdue. The last one was completed 6 years ago.

Despite never receiving a water resources proposal from the administration, we are here today with a good, comprehensive bill, and I hope we can work together to finally get it enacted this year.

With this legislation, we maintain our commitment to the protection of our rivers, streams, and lakes. We also protect our aquatic ecosystems, which are so delicate and yet so vital to critical species.

We help our States and local communities manage their water resources through navigation and shoreline protection projects, as well as provide flood and storm damage protection.

This bill includes the authorization of key coastal restoration and hurricane protection projects to help the State of Louisiana recover from Hurricane Katrina.

There are also some very important project authorizations for my State of Vermont, including ecosystem restoration for the Upper Connecticut River and small dam removal and remediation throughout the State.

In addition, I am pleased this bill updates to the Army Corps of Engineers principles and guidelines to improve the efficiency of the Corps. I am disappointed, however, that some important Corps reform provisions were not included in this bill, such as stronger provisions for independent peer review.

Hurricane Katrina tragically reminded us of the importance of comprehensive reform of the Army Corps of Engineers. I am cosponsoring Senator Feingold's amendment on this topic and encourage my colleagues to join us in support of this reform.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Corps has a tarnished record in many people's minds. The independent review language that will be offered by Senators Feingold and McCain, coupled with the other reforms we have included in the underlying bill, are critical first steps in our efforts to ensure that the Corps has adequate tools and appropriate oversight of its programs.

This water resources bill represents a step forward in our efforts to protect our water resources, enhance environmental restoration, and spur economic development.

Mr. President, I look forward to our debate on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by Senator Boxer.

This amendment has simple goals: to consolidate some ongoing work on the Folsom Dam and get the Corps to finish in a timely manner. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Specter-Carper amendment of the hopper dredge McFarland.

The Corps of Engineers maintains a fleet of four hopper dredges, and according to the GAO the Corps needs to maintain its own fleet, even when there are commercial dredges available.

One reason the Corps needs to maintain a hopper dredge fleet is that changes in annual weather patterns and severe weather events, such as hurricanes and floods, can create a wide disparity in the demand for hopper dredges from year to year.

The McFarland is the only hopper dredge on the East coast. If it were retired, it is not certain that the needs of the East coast during an emergency could be met by the private sector.

I support the amendment by Senators Specter and Carper that would keep the McFarland in the hopper dredge fleet.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I see that as a possibility and would, with the concurrence of the four bill managers, support reasonable modifications to be allowable.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate passed Senator Byrd's amendment, which would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to set interim security regulations that establish homeland security requirements for chemical facilities. Today, I rise to support this amendment in conference.

This amendment takes a necessary first step in ensuring that all chemical facilities presenting the greatest security risk are secure against potential threats. This first step will require these facilities to submit facility security plans to the Department of Homeland Security.

In the U.S., 14,000 chemical plants, manufacturers and water utilities and other facilities store and use extremely hazardous substances that if suddenly released can injure or kill employees or residents in nearby communities. Of these facilities, nearly 450 individually pose a risk of harm to more than 100,000 people.

When I chaired the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during the 107th Congress, the committee unanimously passed chemical security legislation that was offered by Senator Corzine. Industry concerns have stalled efforts to adopt strong bipartisan legislation ever since. In the 108th Congress, this committee passed weaker chemical security legislation that lacked adequate accountability to ensure compliance with essential protective requirements. We filed minority views articulating our concerns.

In 2003 and in 2005, I introduced legislation to improve the security and safety of our Nation's wastewater treatment works. Again, this legislation takes into account our growing awareness of security needs that has developed in the nearly 5 years that have passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. My wastewater security legislation requires all wastewater facilities to complete vulnerability assessments, emergency response plans, and site security plans and to submit them to the EPA.

Senator Byrd's amendment is consistent with my legislation, in that wastewaster facilities would not be exempt from completing security plans and submitting them to the Federal Government.

On May 23, 2006, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee considered wastewater security legislation. I offered an amendment at that markup which would require wastewater facilities to complete and submit to the EPA the full range of security plans that I believe are essential to the protection of wastewater facilities. The amendment would also require facilities to switch to safer treatment chemicals and technologies if grant funding is available. My amendment was not successful and the bill reported out of committee did not require wastewater facilities to complete vulnerability assessments and submit them to the EPA.

Senator Byrd's amendment takes the first step in hardening our Nation's entire chemical infrastructure against security threats.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in conference.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Recycling Investment Saves Energy--RISE--Act of 2006 with my colleague Senator Carper. The RISE tax incentives will create jobs, increase productivity, conserve energy and expand America's recycling infrastructure.

I offer this bill to capture the significant energy savings available through greater recycling. For example, recycling aluminum cans saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source. The amount of lost energy from throwing away aluminum and steel cans, plastic PET and glass containers, newsprint and corrugated packaging was equivalent to the annual output of 15 medium sized coal powerplants. Increasing the recycling rate of these commodities by 10 percent would save enough energy annually to heat 74,350 million American homes, provide the required electricity for 2.5 million Americans, and save about $771 million in avoid costs for barrels of crude oil. As a result, recycling should be an integral component of our nation's energy efficiency strategy.

The RISE Act would also help create quality jobs. Due to the diminishing quantity and quality of available recyclable materials, many companies currently are not able to obtain the volume of quality recycled feedstock needed to meet demand. This new economic challenge makes it even harder for recycled products to compete in the marketplace. In some cases, recyclers have been forced to shut down their operations in the United States and relocate to other countries due in part to insufficient or poor quality recycled feedstocks. This is particularly unfortunate as, on a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables are estimated to sustain 10 times more jobs than landfilling or incineration.

A national investment in our recycling infrastructure is necessary to reverse the stagnant or declining recycling rate of many consumer commodities, including aluminum, glass and plastic. For example, 55 billion aluminum cans were wasted by not being recycled in 2004, which represents approximately $1 billion of aluminum lost to industry. The recycling rate of paper is estimated to be roughly 51 percent, glass containers 35 percent, and PET plastic bottles less than 20 percent.

The RISE Act will save energy and improve the quantity and quality of recycled materials by allowing companies to claim either a 15-percent tax credit or a 50 percent accelerated depreciation deduction for the purchase of machinery and other equipment used exclusively to collect, distribute or recyclable material. Recyclable material is defined broadly to capture a wide variety of commodities, including plastic, scrap textiles, scrap rubber, scrap packaging, recovered fiber, scrap ferrous and nonferrous metals, or electronic waste generated by an individual or business. It does not include buildings, real estate or rolling stock used to transport reuse and recyclable materials.

The RISE Act aims to reverse the trend in recycling rates and resulting energy loss by incentivizing greater collection, distribution and recycling of quality recyclable materials. The bill will address quality concerns by reducing the barriers hindering investment in optical sorting and other state-of-the-art equipment needed at material recovery and manufacturing facilities. It will make innovative technology more affordable, such as reversible vending machines that collect and process empty containers. An earlier version of RISE was incorporated as section 1545 of the Senate Energy Policy Act of 2005, but did not survive the conference committee.

The Rise Act will amend section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by redefining ``solid waste facilities'' to ensure that recycling facilities are eligible for tax-exempt bond financing under this section. This latter provision was created to resolve an ongoing glitch in the law that prevents these facilities from being eligible for tax- exempt financing.

The following organizations support the RISE Act: American Beverage Association, American Forest & Paper Association, Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, Ball Corporation, Carolina Recycling Association, Glass Packaging Institute, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., ISRI, National Association for PET Container Resources, NAPCOR, National Recycling Coalition, National Solid Wastes Management Association, Solid Waste Association of North America, Steel Recycling Institute, US Conference of Mayors/Municipal Waste Management Association, Waste Technology Equipment Association, WASTEC, Envision Plastics, EvCo Research, LLC, Florikan ESA Corporation, L B. Schmidt and Associates, Mid America Recycling Companies, MSS, Inc., Novelis, Inc., formerly Alcan, NRT, Inc., O-I, formerly Owens-Illinois, Orwak Group, Reynolds Recycling, Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., Strategic Materials, Inc., The Coca Cola Company, TiTech Visionsort, Tomra, UltrePET, United Resource Recovery Corporation, Van Dyke Bailer Corp/ Lubo USA, wTe Corporation, Paper Recycling Coalition, and Yemm and Hart,

Ltd. Mr. President, most of these organizations have submitted a joint letter in support of the RISE Act, and I will ask to have the letter printed in the Record following the statement.

Reducing the barriers to recycling also serves a number of environmental goals, including lessening the need for new landfills, preventing emissions of many air and water pollutants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulating the development of green technology. But most importantly, recycling helps preserve resources of our children's future.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.