Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment raised by Senator Akaka on behalf of Senator Clinton, and in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Collins.

Mr. President, colleagues, what we are seeing today with the underlying amendment is a refusal to admit that a mistake was made when FEMA was incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security when it was created in 2002 after September 11.

Rather than correct the mistake, extract FEMA from DHS, and restore it to its former state as an independent agency reporting directly to the President, the Collins amendment makes an effort to change the way FEMA operates within the Department. I support Senator Clinton's second-degree amendment to restore FEMA to an independent, Cabinet- level agency, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Over the last 200 years, we have moved from an ad hoc approach to disaster response to a coordinated, orderly approach, authorized by the Stafford Act, over which my Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, holds jurisdiction.

On September 11, the Nation was struck by a terrorist attack. The effectiveness of FEMA helped reduce the impact of those events.

In what I believe is an example of extremely poor judgment that failed to take into account FEMA's role in responding to natural disasters, FEMA was moved into the Department of Homeland Security.

FEMA has shown itself to be ineffective, in my opinion, largely due to the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA's lack of independence. At the time of the creation of DHS, I said:

I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and

failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's

effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA

into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear

that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to

hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the

question, who will? (November 20, 2002)

Today, unfortunately, we know the answer--no one.

With Hurricane Katrina, I believe that we witnessed the degradation of our national response system as a result of that change. We all watched the results of that free-fall on live television. As I watched the coverage of that event, I could only think of the unnecessary human suffering that was occurring, in part as a result of the bad decision made by Congress to include FEMA in DHS.

Today we have a chance to correct our mistake.

It is the very structure of the Department that makes it impossible for FEMA to be effective. In a disaster, regardless of cause, decisions need to be made quickly and resources need to be brought to bear immediately. FEMA reporting directly to the President is the only way to make this happen. During Katrina, we saw the result of having our emergency response agency buried in the bureaucracy of DHS--executive decisionmakers were isolated from the realities of the situation, preventing the quick, effective action that we saw after September 11. The only way to correct that problem is to get FEMA out of DHS and into a Cabinet-level status, reporting directly to the President.

I urge my colleagues to support the Clinton amendment and reject the Collins amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that my entire statement from 2002 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Spent Nuclear Fuel Control and Accounting Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined by the Senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in introducing this legislation. In the other body, our colleague from Vermont, Congressman Sanders, is introducing a companion measure. This legislation is designed to improve the safety and security of spent nuclear fuel generated by our Nation's nuclear powerplants.

Approximately 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel are generated by the Nation's 103 nuclear powerplants each year. Spent nuclear fuel is no longer able to generate power but is still intensely radioactive and continues to generate heat for tens of thousands of years. Radiation produced by the fuel can kill a person within minutes if they are directly exposed.

Terrorist attacks in the U.S. have heightened public concern generally about whether this highly radioactive material could be stolen and used maliciously. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, argues that spent nuclear fuel is ``self-protecting'' because of its high radioactivity, the potential for harm to human health and the environment warrants close attention to the control and accounting of this material.

I am introducing this legislation because there have been several instances of lost spent nuclear fuel at operating plants in the past few years, including in my own home State. Such losses have eroded public confidence in the job the NRC is doing. Following the loss of spent fuel rod fragments at Vermont Yankee in 2004, I requested that GAO study the issue of how the NRC controls such material. In its April 2005 report, the GAO recommended that the NRC establish requirements for the control of individual fuel rods and fragments and develop inspection procedures to verify plants' compliance.

NRC currently has no regulations that specifically deal with the tracking and recordkeeping of spent nuclear fuel of this type. While the NRC generally has regulations requiring plant operators to maintain records of their spent nuclear fuel they do not specify how individual fuel rods and fragments should be tracked. Additionally, the NRC requires plant operators to inventory spent fuel at least once a year, but does not specify how that inventory should be conducted. Because of this lack of specificity in its regulations, there is considerable variation among nuclear powerplants in how regulations are implemented. Plus, the NRC no longer monitors plants' compliance with its tracking and accounting regulations.

While the NRC has been working administratively to address the issues identified in the GAO report, the proposed legislation would require the NRC to more effectively control and account for spent nuclear fuel. The NRC needs to redouble its efforts to shore up public confidence in its regulatory efforts. This is a difficult task, but one that is critically important.

This bill will focus on the safe operation and management of existing nuclear powerplants. The NRC and the nuclear industry are planning for a ``nuclear renaissance'' with the construction of new nuclear plants. The NRC estimates that it will receive 18 new license requests between now and the year 2012. But, we must maintain continued oversight over existing plants and pay particular attention to the safe management of spent nuclear fuel. The public needs to be confident that the current system operates well, or they will likely not accept a new generation of plants.

The Spent Nuclear Fuel Control and Accounting Act of 2006 directs NRC to develop regulations which would improve the current system of control and accounting for spent nuclear fuel and would help prevent incidents like the one which occurred at Vermont Yankee.

In the case of Vermont Yankee, operated by Entergy, the plant's operators discovered that two pieces of a radioactive fuel rod were missing from the plant's storage facilities on April 21, 2004. During a scheduled fuel outage, the plant conducted a special inspection requested by the NRC to document the location of its fuel rods, both spent and unspent.

The documentation of the pieces' location was requested by the NRC as part of a follow up to the loss of two complete spent fuel rods at the Millstone plant in Connecticut in 2000. At Vermont Yankee, the missing pieces were 7 and 17 inches long, and came from a fuel rod sent to the Vermont Yankee plant by General Electric in 1979 that arrived broken. When the rod broke, the pieces were placed in a lead bucket at the bottom of the spent fuel pool, in which low-level waste was periodically also stored. Later it was learned that a special storage container was ordered from General Electric to house these pieces, and that they were stored in a different part of the fuel pool.

The NRC was involved in Entergy's efforts to use a remote-control camera to see if the misplaced rod pieces were among the spent fuel rods in the plant's spent fuel pool. Entergy also reviewed paper records to see if two missing fuel rods from the plant were shipped to waste storage facilities in South Carolina or the State of Washington. The spent fuel rods were eventually located on July 15, 2004, after a search in which Entergy estimates company employees and outside contractors had spent between 9,000 and 10,000 hours involved in the search.

A similar event occurred at the Millstone nuclear powerplant in Connecticut in 2000 and at the Humboldt Bay plant in California in July 2004. Pacific Gas and Electric officials searched for three missing uranium components of a used nuclear fuel rod in the reactor pool at the decommissioned Humboldt Bay nuclear powerplant near Eureka, CA. Each of the pieces of the missing Humboldt Bay fuel rod is 18 inches long, has the width of a pencil and contains uranium fuel encased in steel. The rods from the Humboldt Bay and Millstone plants are still missing. The Millstone plant paid a $288,000 fine for the loss of its fuel.

When the Millstone incident occurred, the NRC said that fuel rods had never before gone missing in the history of commercial nuclear power in the United States. While I know that the materials at Vermont Yankee were found to be missing due in part to a special inspection the NRC instituted after Millstone, the sad fact is that fuel again went missing. I do not want missing fuel to become the norm. It is not enough to tell the public that we ``think'' it is likely that highly radioactive material went to storage. Certainly it is poor government management not to look carefully at how the

utilities conducted these searches for missing fuel rods, draw out lessons, develop best management practices, and safeguard and protect the existing paper trail we have for the waste stored at our Nation's nuclear power plants. We must improve our nuclear materials accounting system, and my legislation is the first step in doing so.

This legislation calls for NRC to pay special attention to loose individual spent fuel rods and rod fragments like those lost at the Vermont Yankee plant. It requires NRC to report when loose fuel rods and fragments result and requires NRC to conduct an annual inspection to make sure that plants are complying with waste tracking requirements. Additionally, the bill instructs NRC to develop best management practices for the safe storage of individual rods and fragments and for the inventory of spent nuclear fuel. The legislation will require NRC to modernize its data management systems by developing an updated electronic system for storing data and for tracking the location of spent nuclear fuel. The creation of an electronic database of spent fuel storage records would help secure this important information from aging plants that are being uprated and relicensed and also require the new fleet of plants to use a uniform electronic system. Finally, this bill would track the movement of spent nuclear fuel onsite at nuclear powerplants and offsite to other facilities by requiring that manifests indicate whether shipments contain fuel rods or fragments.

I believe that this bill will be an important step towards improving security related to one of the most hazardous materials made by humans--spent nuclear fuel. This bill would increase the scrutiny on the tracking of this material and ensure that spent nuclear fuel remains safely stored in appropriate facilities and does not end up in the wrong hands.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Spent Nuclear Fuel Control and Accounting Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined by the Senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in introducing this legislation. In the other body, our colleague from Vermont, Congressman Sanders, is introducing a companion measure. This legislation is designed to improve the safety and security of spent nuclear fuel generated by our Nation's nuclear powerplants.

Approximately 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel are generated by the Nation's 103 nuclear powerplants each year. Spent nuclear fuel is no longer able to generate power but is still intensely radioactive and continues to generate heat for tens of thousands of years. Radiation produced by the fuel can kill a person within minutes if they are directly exposed.

Terrorist attacks in the U.S. have heightened public concern generally about whether this highly radioactive material could be stolen and used maliciously. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, argues that spent nuclear fuel is ``self-protecting'' because of its high radioactivity, the potential for harm to human health and the environment warrants close attention to the control and accounting of this material.

I am introducing this legislation because there have been several instances of lost spent nuclear fuel at operating plants in the past few years, including in my own home State. Such losses have eroded public confidence in the job the NRC is doing. Following the loss of spent fuel rod fragments at Vermont Yankee in 2004, I requested that GAO study the issue of how the NRC controls such material. In its April 2005 report, the GAO recommended that the NRC establish requirements for the control of individual fuel rods and fragments and develop inspection procedures to verify plants' compliance.

NRC currently has no regulations that specifically deal with the tracking and recordkeeping of spent nuclear fuel of this type. While the NRC generally has regulations requiring plant operators to maintain records of their spent nuclear fuel they do not specify how individual fuel rods and fragments should be tracked. Additionally, the NRC requires plant operators to inventory spent fuel at least once a year, but does not specify how that inventory should be conducted. Because of this lack of specificity in its regulations, there is considerable variation among nuclear powerplants in how regulations are implemented. Plus, the NRC no longer monitors plants' compliance with its tracking and accounting regulations.

While the NRC has been working administratively to address the issues identified in the GAO report, the proposed legislation would require the NRC to more effectively control and account for spent nuclear fuel. The NRC needs to redouble its efforts to shore up public confidence in its regulatory efforts. This is a difficult task, but one that is critically important.

This bill will focus on the safe operation and management of existing nuclear powerplants. The NRC and the nuclear industry are planning for a ``nuclear renaissance'' with the construction of new nuclear plants. The NRC estimates that it will receive 18 new license requests between now and the year 2012. But, we must maintain continued oversight over existing plants and pay particular attention to the safe management of spent nuclear fuel. The public needs to be confident that the current system operates well, or they will likely not accept a new generation of plants.

The Spent Nuclear Fuel Control and Accounting Act of 2006 directs NRC to develop regulations which would improve the current system of control and accounting for spent nuclear fuel and would help prevent incidents like the one which occurred at Vermont Yankee.

In the case of Vermont Yankee, operated by Entergy, the plant's operators discovered that two pieces of a radioactive fuel rod were missing from the plant's storage facilities on April 21, 2004. During a scheduled fuel outage, the plant conducted a special inspection requested by the NRC to document the location of its fuel rods, both spent and unspent.

The documentation of the pieces' location was requested by the NRC as part of a follow up to the loss of two complete spent fuel rods at the Millstone plant in Connecticut in 2000. At Vermont Yankee, the missing pieces were 7 and 17 inches long, and came from a fuel rod sent to the Vermont Yankee plant by General Electric in 1979 that arrived broken. When the rod broke, the pieces were placed in a lead bucket at the bottom of the spent fuel pool, in which low-level waste was periodically also stored. Later it was learned that a special storage container was ordered from General Electric to house these pieces, and that they were stored in a different part of the fuel pool.

The NRC was involved in Entergy's efforts to use a remote-control camera to see if the misplaced rod pieces were among the spent fuel rods in the plant's spent fuel pool. Entergy also reviewed paper records to see if two missing fuel rods from the plant were shipped to waste storage facilities in South Carolina or the State of Washington. The spent fuel rods were eventually located on July 15, 2004, after a search in which Entergy estimates company employees and outside contractors had spent between 9,000 and 10,000 hours involved in the search.

A similar event occurred at the Millstone nuclear powerplant in Connecticut in 2000 and at the Humboldt Bay plant in California in July 2004. Pacific Gas and Electric officials searched for three missing uranium components of a used nuclear fuel rod in the reactor pool at the decommissioned Humboldt Bay nuclear powerplant near Eureka, CA. Each of the pieces of the missing Humboldt Bay fuel rod is 18 inches long, has the width of a pencil and contains uranium fuel encased in steel. The rods from the Humboldt Bay and Millstone plants are still missing. The Millstone plant paid a $288,000 fine for the loss of its fuel.

When the Millstone incident occurred, the NRC said that fuel rods had never before gone missing in the history of commercial nuclear power in the United States. While I know that the materials at Vermont Yankee were found to be missing due in part to a special inspection the NRC instituted after Millstone, the sad fact is that fuel again went missing. I do not want missing fuel to become the norm. It is not enough to tell the public that we ``think'' it is likely that highly radioactive material went to storage. Certainly it is poor government management not to look carefully at how the

utilities conducted these searches for missing fuel rods, draw out lessons, develop best management practices, and safeguard and protect the existing paper trail we have for the waste stored at our Nation's nuclear power plants. We must improve our nuclear materials accounting system, and my legislation is the first step in doing so.

This legislation calls for NRC to pay special attention to loose individual spent fuel rods and rod fragments like those lost at the Vermont Yankee plant. It requires NRC to report when loose fuel rods and fragments result and requires NRC to conduct an annual inspection to make sure that plants are complying with waste tracking requirements. Additionally, the bill instructs NRC to develop best management practices for the safe storage of individual rods and fragments and for the inventory of spent nuclear fuel. The legislation will require NRC to modernize its data management systems by developing an updated electronic system for storing data and for tracking the location of spent nuclear fuel. The creation of an electronic database of spent fuel storage records would help secure this important information from aging plants that are being uprated and relicensed and also require the new fleet of plants to use a uniform electronic system. Finally, this bill would track the movement of spent nuclear fuel onsite at nuclear powerplants and offsite to other facilities by requiring that manifests indicate whether shipments contain fuel rods or fragments.

I believe that this bill will be an important step towards improving security related to one of the most hazardous materials made by humans--spent nuclear fuel. This bill would increase the scrutiny on the tracking of this material and ensure that spent nuclear fuel remains safely stored in appropriate facilities and does not end up in the wrong hands.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2006. This bipartisan bill will go far to further expand Federal green building initiatives and ensure our Federal buildings and schools are safe, efficient and good for the environment.

I would like to thank all of the bill's cosponsors for working with me in a bipartisan manner to introduce this important legislation and implore my colleagues to join us in moving this legislation forward. Not only will this bill improve Federal building efficiency and employee health and productivity, it also demonstrates the leadership of the Federal Government on high-performance green buildings. This bill seeks to codify existing green building initiatives outlined in memorandums of understanding or executive orders, and further enhances ongoing green building programs all across the Federal Government, including the White House. I commend the past and current leadership of the White House Office of the Federal Environmental Executive for all they have done within the administration.

Preliminary studies are showing that high-performance green buildings generate huge savings in utility costs due to their efficient operating systems. These studies have also demonstrated that high-performance green buildings provide a healthier work environment for the occupants, resulting in fewer absences due to illness. This in turn increases worker productivity and ensures fewer health related costs. All of these savings are generated, while sustaining very little impact on surrounding environments.

According to the Department of Energy, throughout the United States buildings account for 39 percent of total energy use, 70 percent of electricity consumption, 38.1 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and 30 percent of raw materials use. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that building related construction and demolition debris account for nearly 37 percent of the total nonindustrial waste, generating 136 million tons of waste in a single year. Building occupants also consume 12 percent of potable water consumption. Why not build buildings that strive to conserve our precious resources, reduce the harmful pollutants that are damaging to the environment and utilize recycled building materials?

In an era of great security concern, green buildings have reduced energy requirements and may use renewable sources of energy that are off the electricity grid. Green buildings also use less water and some even collect rainwater to use throughout the building. Should there be a terrorist act that damages or destroys our Nation's resources, these buildings could assist in keeping our government up and running.

There is no downside to utilizing high-performance buildings. This initiative is taking off in the private sector. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, there are 500 certified green buildings across the United States with 3,000 in the pipeline. This legislation would ensure that the Federal Government is keeping pace with the real world and doing its part to protect the environment and provide a safe workplace for its employees.

In my home State of Vermont, environmental quality and economic opportunity are inextricably linked and green buildings are a visible representation of this connection. The design, construction, and functioning of green buildings will not only enhance environmental quality, worker productivity, and student learning, but will also contribute to the enhancement of a new economy. Environmental technologies and applications represent a new value added area of economic growth that is both efficient and effective.

The Federal Government can learn from progressive policies being implemented in the private sector, State government and our Nation's universities. For example, the University of Vermont, understanding the positive environmental, economic, and human resources benefits, recently adopted a green building policy for its campus that would ensure that all new construction and major renovations be at the certified level of the U.S. Green Building Council's, USGBC, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, green building rating system. This policy is both responsible and affordable.

In the 108th Congress, I introduced S. 2620, the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2004. This new bill updates that earlier version and includes a few new provisions. This legislation will coordinate the efforts within the

Federal Government to promote high-performance green buildings, provide public outreach, and expand existing research.

The General Services Administration, GSA, is the largest civilian landlord in the United States, with over 8,900 buildings in their current inventory. This legislation creates an office within GSA to oversee the green building efforts of agencies within the government. The GSA is a natural leader to focus on our Federal buildings and ensure that they are safe, healthy, and efficient. The GSA is working to provide quality work environments for Federal workers through green initiatives and is currently conducting research on how best to increase workplace effectiveness and occupant comfort. This bill will strengthen what they have already started.

The bill creates a green building advisory committee to advise the office within GSA. The committee will be comprised of key representatives from each relevant agency, State, and local governments, green building associations, experts within the building community, and environmental health experts for both adults and children. This committee will enable the Federal Government to stay up to date with technology and the latest advancements to ensure that high-performance green buildings operate with the maximum efficiency and provide a healthier environment for their occupants.

In addition, research efforts will be expanded to focus on buildings and the impact their systems have on human health and worker productivity. We just don't know enough about the impact of the built environment on its occupants. Take natural daylight for instance. Studies are showing that a simple thing like exposure to daylight actually makes employees more productive and reduces absences due to illness. I would like to pursue this further, as well as an indoor air quality program for all Federal facilities. We need to not only ensure the safety of working employees for existing buildings, but also during construction and renovation of facilities.

The High-Performance Green Buildings Act also requires that a good hard look be taken at the budget process we have used for years and explore ways to improve the approval process for government projects. We need to grow with the times and ensure that our budget process allows us to take full advantage of life-cycle costing. This means that we allow our financial experts to factor in savings that green buildings generate over time, and not just look at the upfront cost of a building. It has been documented that high-performance green buildings recover any initial upfront costs from incorporating efficient systems within the first few years of operation. The average life of a Federal building is over 50 years. In the times of soaring budget deficits, it is imperative the Federal Government pursue all cost-saving options.

High-performance green buildings are not just for Federal buildings, but involve any type of building, including schools. This legislation focuses on providing healthier, more efficient school facilities for our children. The Government Accountability Office reported years ago that over 14 million children have their health affected by poor conditions in schools. The Healthy Schools Network is now reporting 32 million children are at high risk of getting sick from their school facility. It is unacceptable to stand by and let the Nation's children become ill from preventable causes. This bill takes a modest step forward and provides $10 million in grants to state and local education agencies for technical assistance and the implementation of Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, programs to address environmental conditions of our schools like the Tools for Schools Program and the Healthy Schools Environmental Assessment Tool, Healthy SEAT. The bill will help schools develop plans to focus on the design, construction, and renovation of school facilities, and look at systematic improvements for school siting, indoor air quality, reducing contaminants, and other health issues. This legislation also encourages research to study the effects these systems are having on student health and productivity. Our children deserve to learn in an environment that is safe and conducive to learning.

This bill will also promote leadership within the Federal Government by requiring all new construction and acquisition be green, that leases for Federal employees be energy efficient facilities and include green design features, and that guidelines be issued on how to best renegotiate existing leases to adopt these principles. Leadership is also promoted through Federal incentives for government agencies to build high-performance green buildings, as well as expanding the monitoring of each Federal agency's performance in meeting green building requirements and initiatives. It also creates a clearinghouse to keep individuals and entities, including the Federal Government, informed on the information and services that the office would provide.

Finally, by supporting this legislation, we will advance our understanding of green building technologies and implications and simultaneously advance our society. We have the capacity. This legislation provides the Federal leadership to convert our academic buildings to integral components of the curriculum rather than to just facilities that house programs. As learning centers and demonstration facilities, these green buildings will be an example to all of us to be environmentally responsible citizens.

I strongly encourage your support of the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2006 and ask unanimous consent that the text of the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2006 be printed in the Record, as well as the attached letters of support for the bill.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2006. This bipartisan bill will go far to further expand Federal green building initiatives and ensure our Federal buildings and schools are safe, efficient and good for the environment.

I would like to thank all of the bill's cosponsors for working with me in a bipartisan manner to introduce this important legislation and implore my colleagues to join us in moving this legislation forward. Not only will this bill improve Federal building efficiency and employee health and productivity, it also demonstrates the leadership of the Federal Government on high-performance green buildings. This bill seeks to codify existing green building initiatives outlined in memorandums of understanding or executive orders, and further enhances ongoing green building programs all across the Federal Government, including the White House. I commend the past and current leadership of the White House Office of the Federal Environmental Executive for all they have done within the administration.

Preliminary studies are showing that high-performance green buildings generate huge savings in utility costs due to their efficient operating systems. These studies have also demonstrated that high-performance green buildings provide a healthier work environment for the occupants, resulting in fewer absences due to illness. This in turn increases worker productivity and ensures fewer health related costs. All of these savings are generated, while sustaining very little impact on surrounding environments.

According to the Department of Energy, throughout the United States buildings account for 39 percent of total energy use, 70 percent of electricity consumption, 38.1 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and 30 percent of raw materials use. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that building related construction and demolition debris account for nearly 37 percent of the total nonindustrial waste, generating 136 million tons of waste in a single year. Building occupants also consume 12 percent of potable water consumption. Why not build buildings that strive to conserve our precious resources, reduce the harmful pollutants that are damaging to the environment and utilize recycled building materials?

In an era of great security concern, green buildings have reduced energy requirements and may use renewable sources of energy that are off the electricity grid. Green buildings also use less water and some even collect rainwater to use throughout the building. Should there be a terrorist act that damages or destroys our Nation's resources, these buildings could assist in keeping our government up and running.

There is no downside to utilizing high-performance buildings. This initiative is taking off in the private sector. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, there are 500 certified green buildings across the United States with 3,000 in the pipeline. This legislation would ensure that the Federal Government is keeping pace with the real world and doing its part to protect the environment and provide a safe workplace for its employees.

In my home State of Vermont, environmental quality and economic opportunity are inextricably linked and green buildings are a visible representation of this connection. The design, construction, and functioning of green buildings will not only enhance environmental quality, worker productivity, and student learning, but will also contribute to the enhancement of a new economy. Environmental technologies and applications represent a new value added area of economic growth that is both efficient and effective.

The Federal Government can learn from progressive policies being implemented in the private sector, State government and our Nation's universities. For example, the University of Vermont, understanding the positive environmental, economic, and human resources benefits, recently adopted a green building policy for its campus that would ensure that all new construction and major renovations be at the certified level of the U.S. Green Building Council's, USGBC, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, green building rating system. This policy is both responsible and affordable.

In the 108th Congress, I introduced S. 2620, the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2004. This new bill updates that earlier version and includes a few new provisions. This legislation will coordinate the efforts within the

Federal Government to promote high-performance green buildings, provide public outreach, and expand existing research.

The General Services Administration, GSA, is the largest civilian landlord in the United States, with over 8,900 buildings in their current inventory. This legislation creates an office within GSA to oversee the green building efforts of agencies within the government. The GSA is a natural leader to focus on our Federal buildings and ensure that they are safe, healthy, and efficient. The GSA is working to provide quality work environments for Federal workers through green initiatives and is currently conducting research on how best to increase workplace effectiveness and occupant comfort. This bill will strengthen what they have already started.

The bill creates a green building advisory committee to advise the office within GSA. The committee will be comprised of key representatives from each relevant agency, State, and local governments, green building associations, experts within the building community, and environmental health experts for both adults and children. This committee will enable the Federal Government to stay up to date with technology and the latest advancements to ensure that high-performance green buildings operate with the maximum efficiency and provide a healthier environment for their occupants.

In addition, research efforts will be expanded to focus on buildings and the impact their systems have on human health and worker productivity. We just don't know enough about the impact of the built environment on its occupants. Take natural daylight for instance. Studies are showing that a simple thing like exposure to daylight actually makes employees more productive and reduces absences due to illness. I would like to pursue this further, as well as an indoor air quality program for all Federal facilities. We need to not only ensure the safety of working employees for existing buildings, but also during construction and renovation of facilities.

The High-Performance Green Buildings Act also requires that a good hard look be taken at the budget process we have used for years and explore ways to improve the approval process for government projects. We need to grow with the times and ensure that our budget process allows us to take full advantage of life-cycle costing. This means that we allow our financial experts to factor in savings that green buildings generate over time, and not just look at the upfront cost of a building. It has been documented that high-performance green buildings recover any initial upfront costs from incorporating efficient systems within the first few years of operation. The average life of a Federal building is over 50 years. In the times of soaring budget deficits, it is imperative the Federal Government pursue all cost-saving options.

High-performance green buildings are not just for Federal buildings, but involve any type of building, including schools. This legislation focuses on providing healthier, more efficient school facilities for our children. The Government Accountability Office reported years ago that over 14 million children have their health affected by poor conditions in schools. The Healthy Schools Network is now reporting 32 million children are at high risk of getting sick from their school facility. It is unacceptable to stand by and let the Nation's children become ill from preventable causes. This bill takes a modest step forward and provides $10 million in grants to state and local education agencies for technical assistance and the implementation of Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, programs to address environmental conditions of our schools like the Tools for Schools Program and the Healthy Schools Environmental Assessment Tool, Healthy SEAT. The bill will help schools develop plans to focus on the design, construction, and renovation of school facilities, and look at systematic improvements for school siting, indoor air quality, reducing contaminants, and other health issues. This legislation also encourages research to study the effects these systems are having on student health and productivity. Our children deserve to learn in an environment that is safe and conducive to learning.

This bill will also promote leadership within the Federal Government by requiring all new construction and acquisition be green, that leases for Federal employees be energy efficient facilities and include green design features, and that guidelines be issued on how to best renegotiate existing leases to adopt these principles. Leadership is also promoted through Federal incentives for government agencies to build high-performance green buildings, as well as expanding the monitoring of each Federal agency's performance in meeting green building requirements and initiatives. It also creates a clearinghouse to keep individuals and entities, including the Federal Government, informed on the information and services that the office would provide.

Finally, by supporting this legislation, we will advance our understanding of green building technologies and implications and simultaneously advance our society. We have the capacity. This legislation provides the Federal leadership to convert our academic buildings to integral components of the curriculum rather than to just facilities that house programs. As learning centers and demonstration facilities, these green buildings will be an example to all of us to be environmentally responsible citizens.

I strongly encourage your support of the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2006 and ask unanimous consent that the text of the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2006 be printed in the Record, as well as the attached letters of support for the bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to a constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning and other acts of desecration.

As I said during the recent debate on the Federal marriage amendment, I am very troubled by priorities put forth by the Senate majority. Our domestic programs are facing serious budget cuts. Millions of Americans are without health insurance. Gas prices are out of control while our Nation's reliance on foreign oil shows no sign of easing. And we still have no strategy for the war in Iraq. However, the Senate leadership has chosen to spend a portion of our limited days in session to bring up a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

Once again, we seem to be searching for a solution in need of a problem, and I am afraid the reason we are spending time on this topic is only for political gain.

As a veteran with 30 years in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Naval Reserve, I know the pride that members of our Armed Forces feel when they see our flag, wherever they may be in the world. I share the great respect that Vermonters and Americans have for that symbol. I personally detest the notion that anyone would choose to burn a flag as a form of self-expression.

Members of the military put their lives on the line every day to defend the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It is disrespectful of these sacrifices to desecrate the flag.

However, in my opinion, our commitment to free speech must be strong enough to protect the rights of those who express unpopular ideas or who choose such a distasteful means of expression. This concept is at the core of what we stand for as Americans.

Mr. President, I have given this constitutional amendment a great deal of thought. I must continue to oppose this amendment because I do not think we should amend the Bill of Rights unless our basic values as a nation are seriously threatened. In my view, a few incidents of flag burning, as upsetting as they may be, do not meet this high standard.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, all of Vermont is breathing a sigh of relief with the return from Iraq of 350 members of the Vermont National Guard, many of whom have spent most of the past year in Al Ramadi, one of the hot spots of the war. We are terribly proud of the outstanding job they have done, working in a dangerous area, attempting to root out insurgents, bring stability to the region, and provide a climate that will permit reconstruction and development. These brave men and women have set their private lives on hold for a year and a half, risking injury or death, in order to give Iraqi citizens a chance at a better life. I thank them and all Vermonters who have served and continue to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Vermont has lost 23 sons in the Iraq war, one of the highest per capita casualty rates of any State. As Task Force Saber returns, we hold particularly close the families of those members who are not returning: MSG Chris Chapin of Proctor, 1LT Mark Dooley of Wilmington, SPC Scott McLaughlin of Hardwick; 2LT Mark Procopio of Burlington; SGT Joshua Allen Johnson of Richford and SPC Christopher Merchant of Hardwick. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Vermont soldiers have performed admirably the job that was asked of them. Now it is incumbent upon us to determine what our role in Iraq should be and how that role should be carried out in the coming year.

I opposed this war from the very beginning. I did not believe the administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States, and I believed that working through the United Nations would more effectively curtail Saddam Hussein's regime. At the start, in 2003, our presence was welcome, and we had an important obligation to the Iraqi people. But now we find that our presence is in part feeding the cycle of violence that is tearing Iraq apart. Foreign terrorists continue to be recruited to Iraq because that is where they can attack Americans. Iraqi groups are polarized over the American presence and how and when American forces should leave. American military actions continue to be controversial and continue to radicalize certain elements of the population. The newly established permanent Government of Iraq struggles to assert its sovereignty in the face of the heavy American military presence.

It is time that we step back and hand more of the security functions over to the Iraqi security forces. We have been training Iraqi military and police for 3 years. Finally, significant numbers of Iraqi units are able to take over for American units and are doing so in many places across the country. We owe it to them to train, equip, and support Iraqi security forces. But the Iraqi security forces deserve the chance to independently establish the security required for reconstruction and development.

Sectarian violence across Iraq seems to be exacerbated by the U.S. military presence. The presence of American forces makes it more difficult for moderates on all sides to keep out foreign jihadists who are anxious to alter the traditional secular orientation of Iraqi society. The presence of American forces makes it more difficult to shift the Iraqi national debate from conflict to the formation of a unified and effective government. The ongoing presence of American forces makes it harder for the new Iraqi government to take on primary responsibility for countering insurgents in the future.

Ultimately, it must be the Iraqi people, working through their new institutions of government, who find solutions to the religious, ethnic, and cultural divisions that threaten to tear Iraq apart. The Shiite majority must realize that unless it incorporates strong Sunni representation into the

new Government, Sunni minorities will not feel that they can count on the protection of the Government. Kurdish groups want guarantees that their autonomy will be respected. Smaller ethnic and religious groups are worried that democracy means tyranny by the majority over minority populations. The Iraqi people must devise the solutions to these complex problems. They are not likely to look like American solutions. Some of these solutions may not even feel right to us. But our troops have fought for the right of the Iraqi people to decide these things for themselves. We must step back and let them do that.

Getting American troops off the streets of Iraq will remove the sense of occupation that currently pervades parts of Iraq and makes Iraqis feel that their fate is not in their own hands. We may also increase our own security by reducing our visibility in Iraq. Images of American troops patrolling Iraqi streets continue to inflame conservative Arab elements all over the world. The struggle against American occupation is one of the biggest recruiting slogans for radical Muslim groups. If we are serious about fighting terrorism, then we must be mindful of where our own actions foster radicalism and strengthen the enemy.

I will vote for the amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry. The Kerry amendment calls for the withdrawal of the majority of American troops by this time next year, leaving in place those troops necessary to train Iraqi security forces, to conduct specialized counterterrorism operations, or to protect American facilities and personnel. This language would allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq where absolutely necessary but would bring the bulk of our troops home.

I will also support the Levin amendment, which requires that withdrawal of U.S. forces begin before the end of this year. It calls upon the administration to set up a timetable for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops. It makes clear to the Iraqi Government, the Bush administration, and the American people that we must start getting out of Iraq. While this amendment is not as firm as the Kerry amendment, I believe it is an improvement over the current policy of just staying the course with no clear guidance on withdrawal.

Mr. President, we owe it to the men and women who are serving so nobly in Iraq to not leave them in harm's way 1 day longer than is necessary. We can and we must start drawing down the number of troops in Iraq and bringing our people home. This is the right move for our troops, and it is the right move for the Iraqi people. It takes political courage to change course. It is time the Congress showed a little courage in the face of the daily acts of valor displayed by our troops under fire. I call upon my colleagues to rise to the occasion and do what needs to be done. It is time to end a bad policy and focus our efforts on the reconstruction and development of Iraq.

Mr. President, I am pleased that my amendment to support military families was accepted today by the Senate by unanimous consent to S. 2766, the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2007. Let me begin by thanking my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, who joined me last year in introducing the legislation upon which this amendment is based, S. 1888, the Military Family Support Act. His advocacy for this issue and for the families of our men and women in uniform is greatly appreciated. I would also like to recognize Senator Dayton, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Murray for their support for this amendment. Of course, the Senate and our Nation benefit greatly from the leadership on national defense issues of the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, chairman of the

Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. I thank them both and their staff for their assistance with this amendment.

I would also like to acknowledge the cooperation of Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairwoman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman and the expertise of their staff. They were very helpful in the process that has led to this amendment, and I appreciate their assistance.

At about this time last year, I was contacted by a group of Vermonters who were trying to help their coworkers with family members serving in Iraq as part of the Vermont National Guard. I was impressed by the generosity of Vermonters who wanted to do all they could to help ease the strains of military deployments felt by their friends and neighbors. I was also reminded of how a family's day-to-day life is disrupted by a deployment of a loved one overseas.

This amendment calls for two pilot programs to help with family disruptions due to an overseas deployment. The first pilot program, administered by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would authorize Federal employees who have been designated by a member of the Armed Forces as ``caregivers'', as defined by the Department of Defense, DOD, to use their leave in a more flexible manner. No new leave would be given to any employees. This amendment simply makes leave already available more useful during stressful times for military families. The second pilot program allows the Department of Labor, DOL, to solicit businesses to voluntarily take part in a program to offer more accommodating leave to their employees. This amendment does not include in its scope the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, and it does not require any private sector entity to participate.

Mr. President, in closing, this amendment aims to make life a little easier for those who are already giving so much to our country and to their communities.

Mr. President, the motto of the U.S. Marine Corps is Semper Fidelis. Translated, it means, ``Always Faithful,'' but among members of the Marine Corps the motto holds a deeper meaning. Semper Fidelis represents our Nation's shared commitment to those who dedicate their lives to protect us. As a Navy veteran, I know we must always honor the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families for the sacrifices they make for our Nation everyday.

Lately, I am afraid Congress has not fulfilled its commitment to our men and women in the military, and this is especially evident in the lack of support for our military veterans and their families. Our lack of assistance for those exposed to the highly contaminated drinking water at U.S. Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina is one of the best examples of this body's shortcomings.

Camp Lejeune is the site of one of the largest drinking water catastrophes in our Nation's history. Between 1980 and 1985, Camp Lejeune drinking water samples conducted by the Marine Corps found high levels of volatile organic compounds used by the Marines in solvents for industrial degreasing. The contaminated wells were closed in 1985; however, the contamination itself may date back until the late 1950s. To put the contamination in perspective, the current EPA health standard for these chemicals is 5 parts per billon. The tap water samples taken at homes and the elementary school between 1980 and 1985 reached levels as high as 1,400 parts per billon.

While the health effects of exposure to the contaminates at Camp Lejeune are still being studied, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances, ATSDR, has documented at least 100 babies exposed in utero to the contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune have birth defects and cancers, including spina bifida, leukemia, and clef palates. This is at least twice the rate found in the general population.

For the last 20 years, the calls for assistance from those affected by this contamination have gone unanswered. The Department of Defense's cooperation has been slow, and the political will in Congress has been lacking. I will offer a modest amendment to answer the call for help.

Senator Dole's amendment would do two things. First, it would provide veterans' health care benefits to those exposed in utero while at Camp Lejeune. The in utero exposures to Camp Lejeune's contaminated water happened under the Marine Corps watch, and it is our responsibility to assist those who were harmed. Medical assistance is a modest step to help restore faith among our veterans and their family members in the Government's commitment to them.

Second, it requires the Marine Corps to notify those who may have been exposed to the water contamination upon the completion of the ATSDR's study on the human exposures to drinking water. To date, the Marine Corps has issued targeted press releases, but information has not been sent to all who may have been exposed. The ATSDR's modeling of the contaminated water will make it possible to notify exposed segments of the Camp Lejeune population, without creating undue worry among the greater population that resided on base. This amendment will require the Marines to provide notice to those who may have been exposed, to outline the events leading to the exposures, to describe the potential adverse health effects, and to give the affected people resources they can use to obtain more information.

I thank Senator Dole for her leadership on this issue. Without her, this tragic situation would not have gotten the attention it deserves.

Nevertheless, concerns have been raised about this amendment. The people exposed to the highly contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune have waited for decades for answers. Congress needs to take steps now and not delay for years debating this issue.

For this reason, I have worked with Senator Dole on a second, compromise Dole-Jeffords amendment. This amendment would require a comprehensive National Academy of Sciences study to be completed within 18 months to evaluate the strength of the link between TCE and PCE exposure and adverse health impacts for prenatal, childhood, and adult exposures at Camp Lejeune.

It also requires the Navy to notify those potentially affected by the water contamination at Camp Lejeune so they can learn what happened, how it may have affected them, and what steps they may want to consider taking now to minimize the potential health impacts. While I am told by the Defense Department that individual notification by letter to each person affected is impractical, under this compromise amendment, the Navy would carry out a media blitz and place a letter on its Web page providing the information that those affected deserve to have.

Again, I thank Senator Dole for taking a bipartisan approach to this issue and for pushing to make constructive progress. We have a moral responsibility to support our troops and their families, and any failure to do so, is a failure to fulfill our commitment embodied in the Marine's motto Semper Fidelis. I urge my colleagues to approve this compromise amendment.

Mr. President, I am very troubled by the Senate leadership's decision, with limited days remaining in the session, to spend valuable time trying to amend the Constitution to define marriage. This issue should not be at the top of our priority list.

Unfortunately, it is a recurring theme here in the Senate during election years, to concentrate on issues that fuel partisan politics, rather than addressing our country's important needs. For the reasons I will lay out, I will once again oppose a Federal marriage amendment.

The Federal marriage amendment comes up at a time when many other critical issues face our Nation. We have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting wars with no end in sight. Veterans are still not granted adequate medical support, and now have also been exposed to the threat of identity theft. Millions of Americans still have no health insurance, and gas prices are too high.

There are many pieces of pending legislation the Senate should be taking up other than the Federal marriage amendment, such as those addressing increased support for education, Head Start reauthorization, global warming, and a rapidly increasing deficit.

Some of my colleagues insist that the institution of marriage is under attack by the courts, and, therefore, passage of this constitutional amendment is critical. This argument is questionable at best.

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Congress and signed into law. This law gives each State the power to determine its own marriage laws and not be forced to accept another State's definition of marriage. I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act because I believe in the importance of allowing States, including Vermont, the right to define marriage in a manner they deem appropriate.

As of this date, no court has overruled the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, the court that many of my colleagues consider to be the most liberal, the Ninth Circuit, has upheld the Defense of Marriage Act. The proponents of a Federal marriage amendment also point to a case in Nebraska, Equal Protection Inc. v. Brunning, to prove their point. But that case only addressed the right of people to petition the government, it did not rule on the definition of marriage. Because the Defense of Marriage Act remains the law of the land, each State retains the right to define marriage as it sees fit, rather than have a definition forced upon it.

I am proud that in my State of Vermont, the legislature, in a bipartisan manner, was able to pass a law that affords same-sex couples the same legal rights as other married couples. Vermont's civil union legislation proved to the Nation that the rights of marriage do not have to be an exclusive privilege.

The Congress should be focusing on unity, not on exclusion and discrimination. I am proud that during my 32 years in Congress I have been a supporter of inclusive, unifying pieces of legislation. I have been a leading advocate of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Permanent Partners Act, and of expanding the definition of hate crimes to include crimes motivated by gender and sexuality.

Here in the Senate, the leadership continues to insist on prioritizing a Federal marriage amendment. They insist on spending floor time on this amendment when other, more pressing issues remain in the shadows.

What message is the Senate sending to the American people? That real and pertinent issues can be swept aside so we can discuss a way to further exclude our fellow Americans? That we would rather spend time on a partisan fight than expanding our health care programs or increasing funding for education?

This is not a message I can support. We must change our focus from symbolic theoretical debates to concrete policy improvements that yield positive results for all Americans. I will vote against a Federal marriage amendment, and hope this issue will be laid to rest so the Senate can begin addressing the needs of the American people.

Mr. President, I am casting my vote today in favor of GEN Michael V. Hayden to be Director of Central Intelligence. General Hayden has a strong background in intelligence. He has spent his career in national security and particularly intelligence, serving as Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency and as Director of the National Security Agency. General Hayden has served overseas in leadership positions with the U.S. Government in South Korea and Bulgaria, and is currently Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, serving directly under Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte. General Hayden was straightforward in his answers to tough questions during his confirmation process, showing a clear command of the issues of national security and the challenges facing the intelligence community.

The confirmation process has also brought to light General Hayden's leadership qualities. At this time of change and realignment at the CIA, strong leaders are clearly needed. The agency has had a difficult time adapting to the changes in the intelligence community structure and has suffered a decline in morale and sense of mission. By all accounts, General Hayden

will bring a welcome change at the top, hopefully infusing the agency with a new sense of direction and relevance that is badly needed.

I remain very concerned, however, that the wiretapping activities of the NSA have been insufficiently investigated. General Hayden insisted in his confirmation hearings that he was given unequivocal legal advice each step of the way. I do not doubt that this is true, but I believe that significant and compelling questions still remain about the validity of the legal foundation for the wiretapping programs. I have yet to be convinced that these activities are legal. Even if they are found to be legal, I question whether we really want our Government to be engaged in these activities.

But the debate on the NSA activities is far larger than just General Hayden. This debate must go on in depth and focus on the legal and policy issues at stake, not on the personalities of those involved.

We need to get the CIA back onto its feet and functioning properly. I believe that General Hayden is capable of doing that. I trust he will put his considerable skills to work in earnest on this task, as its success is critical to our national security.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in introducing the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006. This legislation designates 48,051 acres within the Green Mountain National Forest for management under the 1964 Wilderness Act.

The Green Mountain National Forest constitutes more than 400,000 acres of woodlands in central and southern Vermont. The Forest hosts up to 3.4 million visitors each year and is capable of supporting a variety of uses, from timber production to snowmobiling to hiking, which contribute to Vermont's economy. The forest is also an important wildlife habitat and source of clean, fresh water. If well managed, the Green Mountain National Forest will remain one of Vermont's most precious environmental treasures, while continuing to support our state's economic and recreational needs for generations to come.

The National Forest Service is responsible for most aspects of national forest management but Congress reserved the authority to set aside undisturbed wilderness lands. Good stewardship of the forest requires leadership, and now is the time for us to accept this responsibility to designate additional wilderness areas.

Twenty-two years ago, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I joined my Senate colleagues, Mr. Stafford and Mr. Leahy, to introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984. That act designated 41,260 acres as wilderness. Since that time the Green Mountain National Forest has acquired over 110,000 additional acres, while the populations of the State and the region have increased. These changing demands, and the changing landscape, provide the opportunity and drive the need to designate additional land as wilderness.

The Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984 directed Congress to consider additional wilderness designations in the Green Mountain National Forest only after 15 years had elapsed and the management plan for the Forest had been thoroughly reviewed. With last month's adoption of a completely revised Land Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain National Forest, these conditions have been met and it is time to act.

I have worked for the past 6 years with the other members of Vermont's Congressional delegation, the National Forest Service, and State leaders. I have reviewed comments from thousands of constituents, visited the forest on the ground and viewed it from the air, and spent countless hours studying maps. These new designations are the result of thorough analysis and thought, and we do not make them lightly.

Many Vermonters disagree with the need for any wilderness designations, much less additional lands to be set aside at this time. I understand their concerns, but I also recognize the intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and I believe deeply in the benefits of managing some areas so that forces of nature hold sway.

The Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006 designates two significant new wilderness areas: the 28,491-acre Glastenbury wilderness in southern Vermont, and the 12,437-acre Battell wilderness in central Vermont. These are pristine, remote forest lands, and would remain undisturbed for future generations.

The recently completed Land and Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain National Forest is a credit to everyone who worked on it, and reflects the hard work of the U.S. National Forest Service. This plan calls for additions to several existing wilderness areas including Peru Peak, Big Branch, Breadloaf and Lye Brook. These recommended additions are included in this legislation, with some modification.

This legislation also calls for 16,890 acres of the Moosalamoo Recreation Area in Central Vermont to be designated a national recreation area. Moosalamoo exists today as a world-class destination for widely diverse outdoor recreation activities on both public and private land. Moosalamoo is managed cooperatively by a group of owners and it attracts visitors from far and wide for hiking, camping, Nordic and alpine skiing and other activities. From the Robert Frost interpretive trails to the blueberry management areas and oak clad escarpments, Moosalamoo is uniquely deserving of national recreation area designation.

The Green Mountain National Forest is an important source of wood products and the timber industry is critically important to Vermont's economy. These wilderness and national recreation area designations are not meant to interfere with a robust timber management program within the forest, and I will work to support that program at every opportunity.

As we introduce this legislation it is important to acknowledge the fine work of Supervisor Paul Brewster and the staff of the Green Mountain National Forest. They applied great skill and technical expertise in developing the new management plan for the forest. The same professionalism will certainly be applied to implement the plan. Our wilderness designations differ somewhat from those proposed by the Forest Service, which is the reason this authority is reserved for Congress, but the new management plan has helped to inform and guide our work.

It is with great pride that I join my colleagues to introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006. Our great state has been blessed with a beautiful natural landscape, which Vermonters have worked hard to preserve. This bill will continue in that tradition by helping to secure areas of the unspoiled wilderness that Vermont is known and admired for.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in introducing the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006. This legislation designates 48,051 acres within the Green Mountain National Forest for management under the 1964 Wilderness Act.

The Green Mountain National Forest constitutes more than 400,000 acres of woodlands in central and southern Vermont. The Forest hosts up to 3.4 million visitors each year and is capable of supporting a variety of uses, from timber production to snowmobiling to hiking, which contribute to Vermont's economy. The forest is also an important wildlife habitat and source of clean, fresh water. If well managed, the Green Mountain National Forest will remain one of Vermont's most precious environmental treasures, while continuing to support our state's economic and recreational needs for generations to come.

The National Forest Service is responsible for most aspects of national forest management but Congress reserved the authority to set aside undisturbed wilderness lands. Good stewardship of the forest requires leadership, and now is the time for us to accept this responsibility to designate additional wilderness areas.

Twenty-two years ago, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I joined my Senate colleagues, Mr. Stafford and Mr. Leahy, to introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984. That act designated 41,260 acres as wilderness. Since that time the Green Mountain National Forest has acquired over 110,000 additional acres, while the populations of the State and the region have increased. These changing demands, and the changing landscape, provide the opportunity and drive the need to designate additional land as wilderness.

The Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984 directed Congress to consider additional wilderness designations in the Green Mountain National Forest only after 15 years had elapsed and the management plan for the Forest had been thoroughly reviewed. With last month's adoption of a completely revised Land Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain National Forest, these conditions have been met and it is time to act.

I have worked for the past 6 years with the other members of Vermont's Congressional delegation, the National Forest Service, and State leaders. I have reviewed comments from thousands of constituents, visited the forest on the ground and viewed it from the air, and spent countless hours studying maps. These new designations are the result of thorough analysis and thought, and we do not make them lightly.

Many Vermonters disagree with the need for any wilderness designations, much less additional lands to be set aside at this time. I understand their concerns, but I also recognize the intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and I believe deeply in the benefits of managing some areas so that forces of nature hold sway.

The Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006 designates two significant new wilderness areas: the 28,491-acre Glastenbury wilderness in southern Vermont, and the 12,437-acre Battell wilderness in central Vermont. These are pristine, remote forest lands, and would remain undisturbed for future generations.

The recently completed Land and Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain National Forest is a credit to everyone who worked on it, and reflects the hard work of the U.S. National Forest Service. This plan calls for additions to several existing wilderness areas including Peru Peak, Big Branch, Breadloaf and Lye Brook. These recommended additions are included in this legislation, with some modification.

This legislation also calls for 16,890 acres of the Moosalamoo Recreation Area in Central Vermont to be designated a national recreation area. Moosalamoo exists today as a world-class destination for widely diverse outdoor recreation activities on both public and private land. Moosalamoo is managed cooperatively by a group of owners and it attracts visitors from far and wide for hiking, camping, Nordic and alpine skiing and other activities. From the Robert Frost interpretive trails to the blueberry management areas and oak clad escarpments, Moosalamoo is uniquely deserving of national recreation area designation.

The Green Mountain National Forest is an important source of wood products and the timber industry is critically important to Vermont's economy. These wilderness and national recreation area designations are not meant to interfere with a robust timber management program within the forest, and I will work to support that program at every opportunity.

As we introduce this legislation it is important to acknowledge the fine work of Supervisor Paul Brewster and the staff of the Green Mountain National Forest. They applied great skill and technical expertise in developing the new management plan for the forest. The same professionalism will certainly be applied to implement the plan. Our wilderness designations differ somewhat from those proposed by the Forest Service, which is the reason this authority is reserved for Congress, but the new management plan has helped to inform and guide our work.

It is with great pride that I join my colleagues to introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006. Our great state has been blessed with a beautiful natural landscape, which Vermonters have worked hard to preserve. This bill will continue in that tradition by helping to secure areas of the unspoiled wilderness that Vermont is known and admired for.