Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am both sad and happy to re-introduce the Clean Power Act again with Senators Lieberman and Collins and the other 16 cosponsors of the legislation from the last Congress. I am happy that they are all still as committed as I am to the fight to reduce pollution and to protect the public's health and to clean up and conserve the environment for future generations.

I am sad that we have not made more progress in this fight to reduce harmful emissions of sulfur dioxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), mercury, and carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power plants. More than 25,000 people are dying prematurely every year because of fine particulate pollution (PM-2.5) that is emitted by power plants in the form of SOX and NOX. More than 4,000 people are dying of heart attacks due to ozone exposure, part of which is caused by power plant emissions. And, over 160 million people are living in areas with unhealthy air quality.

Acid rain continues to fall on our forests and lakes stressing ecosystems in the Northeast and the Southeast. Nearly all the States have some kind of fish consumption warning or advisory due to mercury contamination. And, earlier this week, the chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, who was placed at the request of the Bush Administration, said that he personally believes that the world has ``already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.''

I am sad because there has been zero movement on multi-pollutant legislation in Congress since this legislation was approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in June 2002 in basically the same form we are introducing. As Senators may be aware, prior to that Committee action, I and Senator Reid before me, sought to engage in a bipartisan dialogue to move four pollutant legislation. Though the President promised to support such legislation while a candidate in 2000, he reversed himself on that pledge in early 2001.

Since early 2001, the Administration refused to negotiate, to consider compromise or even to respond to legitimate requests for information or timely technical assistance. Instead, they have concentrated their efforts on undermining the Clean Air Act with a particularly focus on gutting New Source Review. They have not shown any real interest in legislating in this matter.

I am sad that the Administration's general approach has been to go backward before 1990, to undue President Bush Sr.'s legacy. That is not what the American people want and it is not what they and their children deserve. They deserve better. They deserve the promise of the Clean Air Act which is constant improvement and moving forward to provide safe air for everyone to breathe.

It is long past time that all power plants in this country meet modern emission performance standards. There is simply no excuse in a technologically advanced society like ours to have power plants running on 1930s technology. It should be embarrassing for us all and requires a swift and concerted effort and significantly more funding than the Administration and Congress have appropriated thus far to maximize the use of all of our energy resources, including coal and renewables, in an environmentally friendly way.

Simply letting these old dirty dinosaurs keep chugging along is bad for public health and the environment and bad for innovation and the development of new technologies. It is a stone age response to a modern day problem.

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

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. David A. Austin, an extraordinary man who touched many lives but passed away on November 4, 2004.

Dr. Austin lived a life full of vitality and enthusiasm. He had an accomplished career, always helped others without thought for himself and made his family the center of his life.

Dr. Austin was born in Brattleboro, VT, where he graduated from St. Michael's High School and received his Bachelor of Science from St. Michael's College. From there he went on to medical school at the University of Vermont where he began his lifelong career of healing and helping others.

After receiving his Naval Medical Officer commission, he continued his education, graduating from the Naval Deep Sea Diving School here in Washington, DC and the School of Submarine and Undersea Medicine in New London, CT.

After completing his active duty and residency at St. Albans Naval Hospital in New York, Dr. Austin opened his medical practice in Rutland in 1970. When not practicing medicine, he was busy serving the community as a member of the Christ the King Elementary School Parent- Teacher Association and the Mount St. Joseph Academy school board, on both of which he served as president for a time.

Later in life, when many people his age were settling into retirement, he was called up during the first Gulf War to Bahrain to serve his country once again, after which he was awarded the Presidential Meritorious Service Medal.

But one of his greatest honors came last April when his peers in the medical community awarded him the Physician of the Year Award. A better man could not have been recognized.

Dr. Austin will be missed by family, friends and all those he touched with his healing hand.

Mr. President, we are here today in this extraordinary session to discuss a challenge to Ohio's electors.

It was gratifying to see the high level of interest in the election create such a large voter turnout. However, it was discouraging to hear of the problems that affected the election in many parts of the country, including Ohio.

Representative Conyers, other House Democrats, and individuals across this country deserve our thanks for the important work they have done to document the issues that arose from the 2004 election.

I would also like to thank Senator Boxer and Representative Tubbs Jones for their diligence in bringing this issue to the forefront.

All voters deserve to get answers, and corrective actions, to the reported irregularities and flaws of the 2004 election.

As my colleagues may know, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, is currently conducting a comprehensive investigation of many of the issues raised in the 2004 election.

I am very supportive of this investigation, and believe that through a complete and full investigation by the GAO, answers to the questions raised regarding the 2004 election will be obtained.

The information the GAO obtains will allow the Congress to take appropriate action to address the problems uncovered.

At a minimum, there are two changes to our election system that should be implemented by the Congress: requiring a paper trail for electronic voting machines and creating a national standard for provisional ballots.

I will work with my colleagues in the Congress to enact these important reforms. We must work to maintain, and indeed improve, the confidence in and integrity of the election process.

I am under no illusion that the actions taken on this challenge will change the outcome of the election. Senator Kerry has conceded the election. The events of today will not change this result, and I fear they will only further polarize our political landscape.

The solutions to the irregularities of the election will not be found or enacted in this 2-hour process today. They will come from a complete investigation, like the on-going GAO one.

Because I believe that contesting the slate of Ohio electors is not the way to achieve the needed reforms of the election system, I will vote against this challenge today.

However, I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will be vigorously pursuing reforms of the election system to enact much needed improvements in the system.

We have to make sure our elections are a solid reflection of the voters' intent. Given the resources of our great Nation, there is no reason why we should not be able to achieve this goal.

Mr. President, as the 108th Congress comes to a close, the House and the Senate are considering a significant legislative initiative, the Individuals with Disabilities Education, UDEA, Improvement Act. The purpose of the IDEA Improvement Act is to reauthorize the law that was enacted 29 years ago, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. That law, now known as IDEA, was based upon a series of court decisions in the early 1970s that found that children with disabilities were no different than other children and were, and still are, entitled to a free and appropriate education.

I was one of the original authors of the 1975 law. A key provision of that law was the inclusion of language that committed the federal government to pay 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for each disabled child's education. Unfortunately, this is a commitment that has yet to be met. This year, my own state of Vermont had to spend $22 million in state funds to make up the shortfall from the Federal Government.

I do not believe the bill before us, the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004, will provide the Federal funding to sufficiently accommodate all children with disabilities. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the original IDEA law, it is unconscionable that we, the Congress, will have once again failed to fulfill our commitment to pay the 40 percent share we promised almost three decades ago. In fact, as of today, we are not even halfway there.

I voted against the Senate version of this bill earlier this year, primarily because of the funding issue, and I am opposed to the passage of the House-Senate IDEA Improvement Act conference report.

In addition to the funding problem, I have serious concerns about two other provisions. The IDEA Improvement Act aligns itself with the No Child Left Behind standard for teacher quality. Unfortunately, the definition here is as flawed as it is in the NCLB Act. I had hoped the bill would recognize the balance between providing children with quality instruction and the difficulties in recruiting and retaining quality teachers. In Vermont today, more than one-fifth of special educator positions are not filled by qualified personnel. I believe that this bill will make that statistic worse, not better.

Another issue that is troubling to me is the diversion of IDEA funds to other education programs. This bill allows school districts to reduce local spending equal to 50 percent of all new federal IDEA funds, from fiscal year 2005 forward, and use them for other educational purposes. This flexibility is available if school districts are in compliance with IDEA. This means that in

a few years, the vast majority of school districts in the country will be able to shift billions of dollars that had been spent on special education to other areas. I have been fighting for years to increase the amount of money available for special education, and this provision risks derailing the progress that we have made. I am gravely concerned about this provision and its impact. School districts that are underfunded by No Child Left Behind will be tempted to fix that problem by cutting corners in IDEA and using that money for other programs. This sets a terrible example for future education legislation.

Although I oppose the final passage of this bill, several provisions improve upon current law. Most importantly, the bill maintains the constitutionally guaranteed rights of children with disabilities.

The bill greatly improves the monitoring and enforcement procedures for compliance with the law. Previously, states not in compliance were not necessarily sanctioned. In fact, in many situations, the only mechanism for enforcing the law was moving forward with a lawsuit. This new legislation calls for increased federal oversight and provides more enforcement tools at the state level.

Although I am opposing the passage of the IDEA Improvement Act, I would like to especially thank Senator Kennedy and his staff for their efforts during this process, especially Connie Garner, whose hard work is greatly appreciated.

It is my hope that we will not wait until the next authorization to continue to work together to improve the IDEA program and the funding that is so desperately needed for all children with disabilities. Next year will mark 30 years of federal underfunding. When will we recognize that our children have waited long enough?

Mr. President, H.R. 5163, the Norman Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act, will be considered by the Senate today. I support H.R. 5163 and look forward to its enactment into law.

H.R. 5163 will realign the current Research and Special Programs Administration, creating two new entities; the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Research and Innovative Technologies Administration. Each new entity will be led by an Administrator.

Section 2 of the bill provides a new Section 108 of Title 49, creating the new Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In 108(c), the bill creates the Administrator position, as follows:

(c) Administrator.--The head of the Administration shall be

the Administrator who shall be appointed by the President, by

and with advice and consent of the Senate, and shall be an

individual with professional experience in pipeline safety,

hazardous materials safety, or other transportation safety .

. .

By spelling out qualifications for its new Administrator, Congress is seeking to enhance the prospects for success for the new Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

The new Research and Innovative Technologies Administration is created by amending Section 112 of title 49, eliminating reference to the Research and Special Programs Administration and modifying its powers and duties. Aside from adding the position to the Executive Schedule Pay Rate, H.R. 5163 does not address the new Administrator, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration.

As with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, success of the Research and Innovative Technologies Administration will rest to a significant degree on the effectiveness of its leadership. Its Administrator should be well qualified. He or she should be an individual with professional experience in transportation research, research management, research program development, education and training in transportation and transportation-related fields and in transferring technologies into real world applications.

I hope that the President will apply these qualifications when selecting a candidate for Administrator, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration.

Mr. President, I come before the Senate today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Christopher Reeve.

I was lucky to be able to call Christopher Reeve a friend.

His passion for life and for improving the lives of all Americans serves an inspiration to all of us.

He may have played the character of Superman in the movies, but he lived the role of a superman through his life.

I consider myself quite fortunate that our paths crossed on many occasions, in Vermont, at his home in New York, and in the halls of Congress.

Chris was an outspoken advocate for the arts.

As the co-founder of the Congressional Arts Caucus and, for several years, the Chairman of the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Chris and I shared the belief that Federal support for the arts was critical.

At a time when the NEA was under attack in 1995, I asked Chris to testify before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on the importance of the agency.

His testimony brought attention to the issue, and highlighted the role that

arts and education play in the lives of children.

To this day, I believe that his testimony and advocacy helped preserve the agency through very difficult times.

Later, I turned to Chris again for help, this time on the important issue of lifetime caps on health insurance policies.

In 1996, as the Congress was writing new laws governing the portability and availability of health care coverage, Chris helped me gather support for a proposal to raise the lifetime caps of health insurance policies.

Chris was an outspoken advocate in support of that proposal, and shared his own personal story concerning health insurance to raise awareness for the lifetime cap issue.

His courage and leadership brought that issue to the forefront of the Congressional debate.

His dedication to stem cell research was renowned.

His testimony before the Congress and advocacy for the issue--once again--put a human face on the possibilities that could emerge from stem cell research for those with spinal cord injuries and other diseases and afflictions.

Chris' commitment to bettering the lives of individuals with disabilities never ended.

In 2000, Chris traveled to Burlington, VT, at my request to speak before a disability conference.

It was his first visit back to Vermont since his accident.

He called the disability movement the last great civil rights movement, saying the primary obstacle for the disabled is other people's fear.

Chris said:

Changing the public's perception of people with

disabilities takes time. It's about them getting over their

fear. Imagining that it could be them.

And once they know that, once they can really sympathize,

then you get change.

And then America lives up to its full potential.

And I think we're on that path.

Thanks to Christopher Reeve countless Americans will live to their full potential.

We will continue to work on his behalf on the issues he was so dedicated to.

I send my deepest condolences to Chris' wife, Dana, and their entire family.

They cared for Christopher with a love and kindness that was inspirational.

Dana herself was an inspiration to all of us. She understood the devotion and greatness of Chris. She helped Chris live out his desire to help the disabled.

I hope they are comforted with his memory, and the knowledge that their loss is shared by so many across this Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about section 3116 of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report, S. 4200, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent this week. Section 3116 establishes new procedures for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in South Carolina and Idaho that resulted from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Department of Energy, DOE, facilities.

As my colleagues will recall, 48 members of this body voted to remove these provisions during Senate floor consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization bill. Senators were concerned that the provisions in the Senate-passed bill would allow the Department of Energy to leave millions of gallons of high-level nuclear waste next to drinking water supplies in South Carolina. While these provisions have been modified in conference and some changes have been made in an effort to strengthen the language, I regret to say that loopholes still remain that cast serious doubt about whether the environment near these facilities will be protected.

I want to be certain that this language does not preempt the ability of States in which these facilities are located to issue permits to protect the surface and drinking water near these DOE facilities. The new conference report language in section 3116 appears to protect the right of states to approve closure plans or issue permits for the closure of nuclear waste containing tanks. The opening lines of section 3116 specifically eliminates the ability of the Federal Government to regulate these tanks under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 or ``other laws that define classes of radioactive waste.'' This language is silent on state's authority, delegated to them by the federal government under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, to issue permits protecting surface water and drinking water. The conferees did not exempt the requirements of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. These laws and the regulations that implement them, which do contain lists of radioactive pollutants, are not overridden. It is my hope that these laws will be implemented the way the conferees intended, and States will continue to be allow to protect their citizens from exposure to radioactivity through the water they drink and our lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands.

I am also concerned that nuclear waste greater than class C, and generally not suitable for near surface disposal, will remain onsite with limited oversight. Section 3116 allows these wastes to stay onsite pursuant to a plan developed by the DOE in consultation with the NRC. I would have preferred that NRC be explicitly required to follow current regulation regarding disposal of greater than class C waste. Section 3116 instead requires a new ``plan'' that has no particular requirements. Mr. President, radioactive waste remains environmentally harmful for an extremely long period of time. It had been my hope that we could have been more clear about the guidelines for its disposal.

As a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, one of the Senate Committees with jurisdiction over the management of nuclear materials, I am deeply concerned with this provisions. It is unfortunate that it will soon be law. I am concerned that, in the future, with one small change in this legislation, several other States may find their water resources at risk.

Indeed, if this waste sludge remains, the Savannah River site would continue to be among the most radioactively contaminated sites on the planet. It is my hope that the agencies responsible for implementing this section will do so responsibly, and I will be monitoring their actions.

Mr. President, this legislation reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 13 other Senators: the Junior Senator from Maine, Mrs. Collins, the Senior from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, the Senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee.

Funding authorization for this critically important program technically expires at the end of fiscal year 2004. In a regular year, the fiscal year ends on September 30, a date that has already passed. Right now, our Government is operating under a temporary extension of the fiscal year 2004 budget that expires on November 20, 2004. Today, the Federal Government released money for the first quarter of 2005 at the old fiscal year 2004 funding levels. I know that the states are grateful to have this additional money in hand. We must do something now to ensure that this vital program is reauthorized at a higher funding level right away, so that we can provide America's low income families the extra help they need this winter to pay their home heating bills. Who knows now, when we will finish appropriations for fiscal year 2005? We may finish our appropriations legislation in December or January, and we seem headed down that path.

The bill my colleagues and I introduce today sends the right message to concerned constituents already worried about about how they will afford to heat their homes in the face of reported higher home heating costs in the next few months. With this bill we say even if Congress continues to extend last fiscal year's appropriations level or pass a new one, the Senate will increase the amount of money that can be put toward the LIHEAP program.

Fortunately, we know we have support in the Senate for the legislation my colleagues and I introduce today. On February 12, 2004, the Senate passed S. 1786 unanimously. S. 1786 is a bill to extend the Community Services Block Grant Act. Included in Title II, Section 202 of that bill is a provision that would provide an annual LIHEAP funding authorization of $3.4 billion in each of FY2004-FY2006 and at such sums as necessary through FY2010. This bill is identical to Section 202 of S. 1786. Given that it has moved unanimously in the past, it is my hope that the bill I introduce today can pass quickly and become law.

Why is this bill important, Mr. President? First, authorizing LIHEAP at a higher funding level would mean that a subsequent appropriations bill could add more funds to LIHEAP for this winter's heating season. All of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation for LIHEAP has been released, a total of $1.7 billion in regular funds and $99 million in contingency funds, and we've funded the first quarter of 2005 at that same funding level. Even if we wanted to add more money for LIHEAP this winter, Mr. President, Congress is running close to the total authorized limit for the program. Under current law, Congress can only give can only give LIHEAP up to $600 million in contingency funds, and $2 billion in annual regular funding. We are about to head into what is likely to be a cold winter with high fuel cost having nearly hit our credit limit in the amount we can spend on the LIHEAP program. That is wrong. It is poor financial planning and it does a grave injustice to the families that are counting on us, especially when we know fuel costs are going to be high this winter. We should make certain that we can give the LIHEAP program the money it needs, and do so now.

Second, this bill is important our constituents face an uncertain and frightening future with respect to energy costs. We should not continue to fund LIHEAP at last year's level when we know that costs are increasing. In Vermont, my state's fuel assistance programs are now receiving calls from constituents on fixed incomes that have fallen behind on their fuel payments and are concerned about making ends meet. Vermont's first deadline for applications for fuel assistance was August 31, 2004, and payments are not expected to reach eligible applicants until November. In response to this first deadline, my state received 1,800 more applications than last year. Vermont's increase in assistance applications reflects the increased heating costs throughout the Northeast and Midwest. Almost daily, newspapers are reporting on the effect of higher energy costs for consumers in these regions this winter. The Energy Information Administration released its winter forecast this week. They forecast that heating costs will increase, and heating a home with oil in particular will go up by more than 28% compared to a year ago and will cost an average of more than $1,300. Compared to average heating costs from 1998 to 2000, expenditures this winter are expected to be 45 percent higher for heating oil.

Vermont is not alone. The costs for all heating fuels will be greater than last year throughout New England and the Midwest. Natural gas will cost 11% more than it did last year, and propane will cost 17% more. This may be our last opportunity to act before the onset of cold weather in New England and the Midwest. Families and businesses who face a heating crisis this winter deserve our help. Again, I think my colleagues, and I urge swift passage of this bill.

Invasive species are a problem in Lake Champlain in my home State of Vermont. The Lake Champlain ecosystem and regional economy have been seriously impacted already by invasive species, many of which dispersed to the lake from the Hudson River by way of the Champlain Canal. Eurasian Milfoil and Water chestnut have rendered much of southern Lake Champlain unusable for recreation and stripped value from waterfront properties. Hundreds of thousands of dollars each year are spent to control these plants. The sea lamprey has devastated our sport fishery, and large amounts of money are being spent on control, with only mixed results. These are just a few species. Once here it is nearly impossible to eliminate these invaders and even marginally controlling them is hugely expensive.

Other invasive species have not yet reached Lake Champlain but have spread widely throughout the Hudson and/or Great lakes drainages. We know they are coming and must act now to keep them out. These include fish like the Asian carp, Eurasian ruff, round goby, alewife and tench. Any one of these could change the Lake Champlain ecosystem in catastrophic ways, and each is moving toward the basin. Invertebrate species such as the spiny waterflea and fish hook flea, as well as aquatic plants are also of concern.

Because of the success of the dispersal barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, we are looking for a similar barrier for the Lake Champlain Canal to keep more invasive species out of Lake Champlain. A barrier will also protect the Hudson River drainage from invasive species that may arrive first from the north, like a particularly damaging fish, the tench.

We must move quickly to complete design, and to construct a dispersal barrier in the Lake Champlain Canal. Time is of essence.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Linda Crnic, of Denver, CO, who passed away unexpectedly on September 10, 2004.

Dr. Crnic was a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and director of the Colorado Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability Research Center. She was also an inspiration to thousands of families across the Nation for her internationally recognized research on Down syndrome and Fragile X.

Down syndrome and Fragile X are the two leading genetic disorders causing mental retardation. Fragile X is an inherited disorder caused by a defect in one gene on the X chromosome. It is also the most common known cause of Autism.

While I did not know Linda personally, many individuals have reached out to me in recent weeks with stories and tributes about the impact Linda made as a mother, as a colleague, as a friend, and through her research.

Dr. Crnic's research helped individuals with Down syndrome and Fragile X become increasingly integrated into society and live fuller and more active lives.

Through the efforts and outreach of professionals like Linda Crnic, all of us benefit as research about these disorders have also led to new medical insights and treatments.

According to those families, whose lives she touched so profoundly, one cannot begin to describe the high regard and affection in which Dr. Crnic

was held. She was a researcher to whom parents of children with Fragile X and Down syndrome could always go to with their concerns, regardless of whether or not their concerns were related to Dr. Crnic's area of research. She listened and responded. This loss, for the Fragile X and Down syndrome communities is incalculable.

I send my deepest condolences to Linda Crnic's family. I hope they are comforted with her memory and knowledge that their loss is shared by so many in her community and across this nation.

I ask that the following news story about the life of Linda Crnic from the Rocky Mountain News be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today we are about to enact S. 1134, the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2004. This bipartisan bill, which I helped craft, will strengthen the agency's ability to assist economically distressed communities in Vermont and across the Nation by providing approximately $1.3 billion in economic development grants over the next 5 years.

Since its establishment in 1965, the Economic Development Administration, EDA, has invested more than $18.4 billion in more than 52,000 projects in all 50 States and in U.S. territories. These EDA investments have been supplemented by approximately $8.3 billion in matching funds from investment partners and have leveraged approximately $90.6 billion in private sector investment. In total, these investments have created more than 2.9 million jobs and saved more than 830,000 jobs.

In Vermont, for example, EDA funds have been used to develop a business incubator in Randolph and will soon be used to provide high- speed Internet access to the states most rural region of Caledonia, Essex, Orleans, Lamoille, Franklin, and Grand Isle Counties. My goal with this legislation has been to increase the investment of EDA dollars

in Vermont, and 5 years from now I believe that will be demonstrated.

The bill we are considering today is slightly altered from the one that we passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee last June. In an effort to speed eventual enactment into law, this substitute bill is not only supported by myself, Senator Inhofe, the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Bond and Reid, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment Committee's Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, but it is also supported by our House counterparts on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

I am pleased we were able to increase funding for planning in this bill. EDA has an important role to play in supporting planning at the local level. EDA has an important role as well to encourage the leveraging of federal funds. However, there is language in this bill that ensures that rural and urban economically distressed areas are not adversely impacted by internal EDA leveraging goals.

Turning to brownfields, I am pleased this bill encourages EDA to promote the redevelopment of abandoned industrial facilities and brownfields. The economic and social benefits of brownfields redevelopment are well documented. For example, in June 2003, the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated that brownfields redevelopment could generate more than 575,000 additional jobs and up to $1.9 billion annually in new tax revenues for cities. In addition, according to EPA, every acre of reused brownfields preserves an estimated 4.5 acres of unused open space. Estimates of the number of brownfields sites nationwide range from 450,000 to as many as a million.

This bill complements the 2002 Environmental Protection Agency brownfields cleanup law by encouraging EDA to make economic redevelopment of brownfields a priority. In other words, EPA's focus is to facilitate the environmental assessment and cleanup of abandoned sites, whereas EDA's role is to encourage the economic reuse of the property.

I agree with EDA Administrator David Sampson, who in response to a question from the EPW Committee, wrote, ``cleanup activities are most appropriately handled by state and federal environmental regulatory agencies with the background and technical expertise to address complex remediation issues.'' As such, I expect that EDA would only fund redevelopment projects at sites that have been certified as ``clean'' by EPA or the State environmental agency. In the rare circumstance that an EDA grant recipient discovers minimal contamination as part of a redevelopment project, this bill would require any remediation activities be conducted in compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws and standards. EDA grantees should obtain the prior written approval of EPA or the State environmental agency to ensure that the remediation is protective of human health and the environment.

Of course, EDA also must uphold the ``polluter pays'' principle by ensuring that Federal dollars are never given to the polluter to clean up contamination that they caused in the first place. Likewise, nothing in this bill in any way affects the liability of any party under Superfund, RCRA or any other federal or state law.

The final brownfields-related aspect of the bill requires a General Auditing Office study of EDA's brownfield grants. This study should provide valuable data on the extent to which EDA brownfield redevelopment grants involve remediation activities, the environmental standards applied and the role of Federal, State and local environmental agencies and public participation in the cleanup process. It is my hope that such information will enable future Congresses to revisit these issues to ensure more explicitly that any remediation performed is truly incidental to the larger economic redevelopment project and that cleanups performed using federal dollars are protective of human health and the environment.

In closing I praise the bipartisan member and staff effort that went into crafting this important bill. In particular, I acknowledge the work of Geoffrey Brown and Malcolm Woolf on my staff; Angie Giancarlo and Frank Fannon on Senator Inhofe's staff; David Montes on Senator Reid's staff; and Nick Karellas and Ellen Stein on Senator Bond's staff.

Mr. President, the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2004, S. 1134, contains important provisions relating to the redevelopment of brownfields. As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I want to take the opportunity to explain these provisions. Before I begin, let me acknowledge the contributions of Senator Chafee, chair of the Superfund and Waste Management subcommittee, in developing these provisions and note that he supports my comments today.

S. 1134 encourages EDA to promote the redevelopment of abandoned industrial facilities and brownfields. The economic and social benefits of brownfields redevelopment are well documented. For example, in June 2003, the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated that brownfields redevelopment could generate more than 575,000 additional jobs and up to $1.9 billion annually in new tax revenues for cities. In addition, according to EPA, every acre of reused brownfields preserves an estimated 4.5 acres of unused open space. Estimates of the number of brownfields sites nationwide range from 450,000 to as many as a million.

This bill complements the 2002 Environmental Protection Agency brownfields cleanup law by encouraging EDA to make economic redevelopment of brownfields a priority. In other words, EPA's focus is to facilitate the environmental assessment and cleanup of abandoned sites, whereas EDA's role is to encourage the economic reuse of the property.

I agree with EDA Administrator David Sampson, who in response to a question from the EPW Committee, wrote, ``cleanup activities are most appropriately handled by state and federal environmental regulatory agencies with the background and technical expertise to address complex remediation issues.'' As such, I expect that EDA would only fund redevelopment projects at sites that have been certified as ``clean'' by EPA or the State environmental agency. In the rare circumstance that an EDA grant recipient discovers minimal contamination as part of a redevelopment project, this bill would require any remediation activities be conducted in compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws and standards. EDA grantees should obtain the prior written approval of EPA or the State environmental agency to ensure that the remediation is protective of human health the environment.

Of course, EDA also must uphold the ``polluter pays'' principle by ensuring that Federal dollars are never given to the polluter to clean up contamination that they caused in the first place. Likewise, nothing in this bill in any way affects the liability of any party under Superfund, RCRA or any other Federal or State law.

The final brownfields-related aspect of the bill requires a General Auditing Office study of EDA's brownfield grants. This study should provide valuable data on the extent to which EDA brownfield redevelopment grants involve remediation activities, the environmental standards applied and the role of Federal, State and local environmental agencies and public participation in the cleanup process. It is my hope that such information will enable future Congresses to revisit these issues to ensure more explicitly that any remediation performed is truly incidental to the larger economic redevelopment project and that cleanups performed using Federal dollars are protective of human health and the environment.

In closing I would like to praise the bipartisan Member and staff work that went into crafting this important bill and urge swift passage by the other body.

Mr. President, on the morning of September 14, 2001, I toured the Pentagon with officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. I was so impressed, that on the morning of September 11, in the hours following an unspeakable tragedy, first responders and rescue workers from different departments were able to work as one great team to extinguish the fires, to help the injured, and to save lives. This first impression only tells half of the real story. In actuality, the bravery and selflessness of the firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and police officers were hindered by a lack of interoperability between their communications systems. I spoke with workers at the Pentagon who experienced this limitation firsthand. It's inconceivable to me that members of fire departments and emergency agencies from Fairfax and Arlington Counties, the District of Columbia, and Montgomery County were held back because of equipment incompatibility.

The lack of adequate communications equipment was not only an unnecessary impediment to response operations in and among units on duty across the Potomac at the Pentagon, but has also been an obstacle to other emergencies. In March 2002, I chaired an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing to address the budget needs of FEMA. At the hearing, then-Director Joe Allbaugh testified that:

This problem of limited interoperability is especially

frustrating in the area of communications. While at Ground

Zero for several days, I personally witnessed first

responders passing notes, handwritten notes, back and forth

to one another as the most reliable, effective means of

communication. On September 11 and in other emergency

situations, seamless communication interoperability would

have saved lives.

Today, more than 3 years after the attacks of September 11, the Senate is still debating the issues of interoperability and sufficient communications capabilities.

Interoperability is not only an issue during times of extreme national distress, whether brought on by a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. On August 19, 1997, residents and police officers from northern Vermont and New Hampshire were faced with tragedy when Carl Draga began a shooting spree, killing four and wounding three others, before being killed in an standoff with police. Throughout that sad day, officers from the Vermont and New Hampshire State Police and a New Hampshire Fish and Game warden chased Draga across the Connecticut River from New Hampshire to Vermont and back again to New Hampshire. Compounding the difficulty of pursuing a fugitive across State lines, was the lack of interoperability between the departments. Communications were hampered by the technical limitations of the radios and other equipment.

Last week, the Senate unanimously adopted amendments that will provide for a higher priority for public safety in terms of Spectrum allocation. My amendment will further address the needs of first responders. My amendment will establish National Interoperability Standards and a National Interoperability Implementation Plan to put those standards into place. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, will, no later than 1 year after the enactment of this bill, adopt interoperability goals and standards to fully assess and evaluate the technical needs of first responders for more routine operations and for catastrophic events like those we suffered on September 11, 2001. After those goals and standards are developed, the DHS will create an implementation plan, and will report to the Congress on its plan and its progress. This will ensure that as the Federal Government, States, and localities spend money on interoperability, we will all be working in the same direction, toward one set of goals, with measurable results.

My amendment also requires that the DHS establish a means of coordinating international interoperability. For States like Vermont, which share an international borer, it is imperative

that first responders in both nations communicate with each other.

We must be prepared for the future, and we must give our first responders the tools they need to perform their duties. My amendment will give the DHS the direction and authority to make our country safer.

Mr. President, I will never forget my visit to Ground Zero. I hope that September 11 is an event that will never be repeated, on any scale, in our country or anywhere in the world.

I share the goal of all my colleagues that our Nation be as prepared as possible, should such an event occur. However, in seeking to improve our capability to respond to terrorism, it is critical that we do not lose our capability to respond to natural disasters, which happen much more frequently than terrorist events.

The Inhofe-Jeffords second degree amendment to the Collins' amendment will ensure that as we seek to enhance our ability to respond to terrorist events, we do not lose our ability to respond to natural disasters.

I thank my colleagues, the chair and ranking member of the Government Affairs Committee and Senator Carper, a cosponsor of the Collins amendment for agreeing to accept this amendment.

The role of a first responder, whether responding to a terrorist event or a natural disaster is, for the most part, the same. For decades, the Federal, State, and local governments in this Nation have partnered together to plan, prepare, respond, and recover from both minor and major natural disasters.

We have a robust system for responding to these events, authorized through the Stafford Act and executed through FEMA. My home State of Vermont has a long history with emergency management.

My colleague and friend, Senator Bob Stafford of Vermont, served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for many years and ushered the Stafford Act through Congress in 1974. The Stafford Act is the authorizing statute for emergency response activities at the Federal level, and it forms the basis for the emergency management system in this Nation. The Stafford Act gave structure to an emergency response process where virtually none existed in the past.

FEMA, which was formed in 1979 and incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security in the Homeland Security Act, is a robust agency, with extensive experience in all-hazards planning, preparing, response, and recovery. It has a tradition of providing quick response to people in immediate need.

As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee during the 107th Congress, I recognized the need to provide assistance to our first responders. I was struck during my visits to the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in particular at the inability of first responders to communicate with each other. To combat this and the other shortcomings we observed, I introduced S. 2664, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Act of 2003 with my colleague Senator Bob Smith. The EPW Committee reported that bill on June 27, 2002.

During this Congress, Senator Inhofe and I worked together to introduce S. 930, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Act of 2003. The EPW Committee reported that bill favorably on July 30, 2003, by voice vote.

Before the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, I expressed grave concerns about the proposal to incorporate FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security. I was concerned at that time that the robust agency we saw jumping every hurdle after September 11, 2001 to provide assistance to World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and to hundreds of natural disasters each year, would give way under the pressure of the enormous bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and lose its ability to respond quickly and effectively to disasters.

I remain concerned today. However, the administration prevailed and incorporated FEMA in DHS with the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Since the formation of DHS, FEMA has administered aid for 169 major disasters, 29 emergency declarations, and 172 fire management assistance declarations--all natural disasters. That is 370 communities that have received emergency assistance from the Federal Government and our Nation's first responders for natural disasters.

Over the last several weeks, we have seen record-breaking hurricanes rip through the southeast bringing high winds, flooding, tornadoes, and beach erosion. In my home State of Vermont, we recently had a disaster declared for extensive flooding throughout the State.

The Inhofe-Jeffords second degree amendment ensures that FEMA, the agency responsible for administering our Nation's disaster response programs, is involved in the distribution of funds to first responders and that grants made are consistent with the Stafford Act. This ensures that we will not lose the level of preparedness and response that we have seen at work in States like Florida over the last few weeks.

We obviously need to be prepared for the small percentage of the time when a terrorist event may occur, but we cannot ignore the day-to-day operations, which affect so many lives.

I thank my colleagues, the distinguished chair and ranking member of the subcommittee as well as Senator Carper, a cosponsor of the Collins amendment, for working with us to incorporate our second degree into the underlying amendment.

Madam President, I was unavoidably absent from yesterday's vote on the nomination of Porter Goss to be Director of Central Intelligence. I wish the Record to show that if I had been present, I would have voted in favor of the nomination.

The Constitution gives the President the power to select the heads of government agencies and departments. The Senate was given the responsibility of reviewing these choices and approving or disapproving them. As a body, the Senate was not given the authority to choose whomever it wishes to fill these positions. Nor is any Senator able to substitute the President's choice with an individual who he or she feels is better qualified than the President's nominee. Rather, the Senate's consent is designed to act as a ``check'' on the selection of an egregious candidate and a final review of the qualifications and competencies of the nominee.

Porter Goss would not have been my choice for Director of Central Intelligence. I share the concerns of many of my colleagues about the partisan political nature of many of Representative Goss's statements and positions in recent months. His opposition to the creation of the 9/11 Commission is particularly troubling. With his extensive knowledge of the intelligence community, I would have expected him to be acutely aware that the commission was

vitally important to improving national security and healing the wounds of September 11, 2001.

However, one cannot dispute the fact that Representative Goss has a great deal of experience both inside and outside the intelligence community. Early in his career he worked for the CIA both in covert operations during the Cold War and in analysis for the Directorate of Operations. This familiarity with the agency proved very valuable when, after his election to Congress in 1988, he joined the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, serving as its chairman for the past 7 years. By all accounts, Representative Goss has worked diligently to perform the oversight functions invested in Congress and to improve the quality of intelligence operations.

Representative Goss indicated in his testimony last week before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that he appreciates that the Director of Central Intelligence, DCI, does not have the same freedom as a Member of Congress to be partisan or provocative. The DCI is required by law to be nonpartisan, and remain above the political fray. As we saw in the Iraq war, politicization of intelligence is one of the gravest threats to our national security. Representative Goss acknowledged that ``objective and precise intelligence is only possible if the intelligence community's leadership is itself objective, independent and clear in its commitment to these ideas.''

Mr. Goss has been quite forthright in criticizing the intelligence community for relying too heavily on national technical means and not investing in the more difficult area of human intelligence collection. This takes more time and commitment, but it is essential if we are to make headway against international terrorism.

The coming years will bring considerable reorganization and potential turmoil for the intelligence community. I believe changes must be made in a very careful, conscientious, and nonpartisan manner. Representative Goss has said he understands that politics must stop at the DCI's office door. Based on his assurance that he understands the difference between being a Member of Congress and being in charge of the Nation's intelligence, I will support his confirmation. For the sake of the Nation, we all must hope that he is successful.

Mr. President, this week, seventy-four nations are meeting in Geneva at the first Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides. This important international agreement establishes a legally binding framework that requires exporters of listed substances to secure informed consent from governments of importing countries prior to any shipment of such chemicals. Simply put, the convention recognizes and incorporates the basic principle of right-to-know with respect to trade in hazardous chemicals. As such, it marks yet another positive step in the direction of a comprehensive international approach to chemicals management.

Unfortunately, the United States is not yet a party to the convention, and thus will not be at the table this week when important decisions are made regarding organization, scope, and future direction. Earlier this week, for example, the parties agreed to add fourteen new chemicals to the convention's list of substances requiring informed consent. Because we are not a party, the United States did not participate in that decision.

Lest one think this is an exceptional case, the Rotterdam Convention is one of three important international agreements on chemicals that the United States has signed, but so far failed to ratify. The two other agreements--the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and the POPs Protocol to the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution--ban or severely restrict the production and use of some of the most hazardous chemicals in existence. Both agreements have entered into force, and preparations are being made for the first meetings of the parties. Yet, the United States is not on board.

Although our Government played a leading role in negotiating all of these agreements and despite the fact that the United States is a signatory to each, the current administration along with the leadership in Congress has so far failed to move the necessary implementing legislation that would allow the United States to become a party. Such legislation involves the work of four different committees in the Congress. To date, however, only the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has reported a bill, which I co-sponsored with Senator Chafee. This bill provides a reasonable and effective approach to meeting our current obligations under all three of these agreements, while also providing a robust mechanism for accommodating future decisions of the parties. I would urge my colleagues to follow our lead and swiftly enact sensible implementing legislation. The United States cannot afford to sit on the sidelines any longer.