Floor Statements

Mr. President, homeland security experts refer to chemical plants as ``pre-positioned weapons of mass destruction.'' Yet more than 3 years after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration has done almost nothing to enhance the security of the estimated 15,000 chemical facilities in the United States.

I therefore support the amendment of Senator Corzine to provide $100 million for State and local efforts to enhance the safety of communities around chemical plants. These funds are needed to allow for expanded law enforcement presence around plants, better training and preparation for first responders and local officials, and additional guidance for plant managers.

This is just a first step, however. Communities cannot do it alone. To truly enhance security, chemical sources must implement security plans that address their unique vulnerabilities. Some facilities have already made considerable improvements, such as repositioning storage tanks away from public roads and hiring more guards. Here in Washington, DC, the Blue Plains water treatment plant went one step further by switching from chlorine to bleach, thereby reducing the inherent hazards posed by their operations. Notwithstanding these improvements, numerous media and government reports continue to document significant security gaps at many facilities.

National legislation mandating federally enforceable minimum standards is long overdue. When I was chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, we unanimously passed Senator Corzine's legislation out of committee. Bowing to pressure from the petroleum and chemical industries, the Bush administration put the brakes on this legislation. Now, almost 2 years later, we are still debating the issue.

We cannot afford to ignore the risks posed by chemical plants any longer. A terrorist attack at any one of the 15,000 chemical facilities nationwide would likely cause death or injury to the people in the surrounding communities. The chemical industry's own data indicates that, in a worst case release, toxic chemicals could threaten more than 1 million people at each of 123 facilities spread across 24 States. There are also more than 700 facilities from which a chemical release could threaten more than 100,000 residential neighbors.

This issue is too important to ignore or add at the last minute to another bill without adequate time for proper consideration. I have asked my staff to continue working in a tri-partisan fashion to develop legislation that can be adopted unanimously by the Senate. If such an agreement cannot be reached quickly, however, we should move stand- alone legislation to the floor for a full debate.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of Senator Corzine to help communities surrounding chemical plants address the added security risks that these facilities pose. We should then quickly enact comprehensive chemical security legislation to supplement these community efforts and ensure that the chemical facilities themselves do their part to ensure the safety of our home towns.

Mr. President, I pay tribute today to WCAX Channel 3, the CBS affiliate based in South Burlington, VT, which will reach a milestone this month when it marks its 50th year of broadcasting.

WCAX has documented many changes in my home State during that half- century, some for the better, some not. But Channel 3's crucial role in chronicling history cannot be overstated. From its coverage of high school baseball to State House politics, Channel 3 gives Vermonters the news they need. The station's patriarch, Stuart ``Red'' Martin, is as much a part of the Vermont fabric as the State's dairy farms and dirt roads.

Vermont had the distinction of being the very last State in the Nation to have its own television station when WCAX aired its first broadcast from a transmitter at the top of Mount Mansfield, according to the authors of the recently released book, ``Freedom and Unity: a History of Vermont.''

In this book, the authors write, ``By then, the image of Vermont both within and outside the State as an isolated, rural, museumlike, homogeneous, and unchanging society was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.'' Indeed it was, and Channel 3 was there to broadcast Vermont's changing image into living rooms from one end of the State to the other.

Today, Channel 3 has a little more competition than it did back in 1954, but it maintains the distinction of being ``Vermont's Own.'' Over the years, Channel 3 has amassed a variety of impressive awards too numerous to list. But suffice it to say that many a political career has risen or fallen based on Channel 3 news coverage, and some of us are better off for it. Now if they would just purge that old file tape!

Thank you, Channel 3, for being there through all these years of public service--from helping farmers through the Agriculture Extension Service to the advent of satellite hookups--to capture Vermont's rich and unique history.

Mr. President, I express my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator Boxer to provide $70 million to our Nation's first responders for interoperability.

In the days following 9/11, interoperability became one of my chief concerns. I was appalled that our first responders did not have the tools they need to communicate with each other. I know that some progress has been made in distributing funds to States and localities to develop interoperable communications plans and to purchase interoperable equipment. However, I continue to be dissatisfied with the levels of commitment and funding dedicated to this critical need by this administration. It is clear that the Congress needs to take a leadership role to ensure that our first responders are adequately equipped to deal with future disasters, whether caused by terrorism or natural weather events. I urge my colleagues to support additional funding for interoperability.

Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Leahy, myself, and other colleagues that would prohibit opening up the Immigration Information Officers, IIO, position for commercial competition.

This position was opened for commercial competition after a determination that the IIO position was not performing an ``inherently governmental activity,'' and thus capable of being filled through commercial competition. This decision was fundamentally flawed and will, if implemented, be an impediment to national security.

While a very basic description of the functions performed by an IIO might include telephonic and written responses to questions from the public, a closer look at the duties actually performed by IIOs results in a more varied list of duties. My staff and I have had the pleasure of being helped by IIOs on numerous occasions over the years in our attempts to assist my constituents. It is my experience, that IIOs not only provide basic immigration information to the public, but they also have the ability to advise petitioners on the type of petition to file; they have the authority to correct mistakes made in Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, records and computer systems; they can reject petitions for various reasons; and it is my understanding that many IIOs adjudicate petitions.

As anyone who is familiar with United States immigration law knows, interpreting regulations and offering advice is a complicated business. When dealing with immigration law, the potential is great for making a mistake that could severely impact a business or a family for a lifetime. Thus, it is inconceivable to me that CIS would consider opening this position to commercial competition.

In the interest of security, following the 2001 terrorist attacks, the Federal Government decided that airport passenger screeners should be Federal employees. Consistent with that decision, I believe that maintaining the IIO position as a Federal employee position strengthens our protection against future terrorist attacks.

In reality, IIOs have the ability to determine who can or cannot remain in this country. When dealing with the public, they draw from a wealth of institutional knowledge that benefits not only the petitioner, but also the entire Nation. IIOs also have access to agency records and can, in fact, modify such information when appropriate.

For many years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, struggled to live up to the word ``service'' in its name. It is my hope that at the beginning of this new era, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, including the CIS, we will not weaken our ability to provide persons seeking immigration benefits with the service they deserve. Having the important duties of Immigration Information Officers performed by individuals selected through commercial competition will only hinder the service provided, not improve it.

A similar amendment passed in the House of Representatives during its consideration of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill this year, and I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues will join us in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that today the Senate will pass a measure that many have worked on for many years. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, and similar companion legislation, have been the focus of considerable efforts by many of our colleagues since 1999. I must thank Senator Gregg, Senator Kennedy and our other colleagues for all their hard work in bringing S. 720 before the Senate today.

In 1999, Americans were shocked by the findings of the landmark Institute of Medicine study on medical errors. As we all know, that study reported that the number of deaths associated with medical errors could be as high 98,000 each year.

Most importantly, the report noted that more than half of these deaths resulted from preventable errors--needless deaths that could have been prevented if we only had a system in place that would help providers learn from each other's mistakes.

The bill starts with a simple premise. Let's set up a system that helps our health

care providers learn from each other. Let's set up a system that promotes the reporting and analysis of medical errors. Let's set up a system that engenders the trust of providers and the patients they serve.

Of course, we also live in a complex society, one in which medical errors that may have harmed a patient might also be the basis for litigation. It is a right under our laws to seek a remedy when harmed, and we need to preserve access to certain information for this redress of grievances.

However, an unfortunate consequence of living in a litigious society is that hospitals and providers often feel that it's not in their best interests to share information openly and honestly. We know, in fact, that their attorneys and risk managers often advise them not to do so. So, in order for our system to work, it needs to balance these sometimes competing demands.

The bill we are considering strikes this balance. It calls for the creation of new entities we call Patient Safety Organizations that would collect voluntarily reported patient safety data. This bill provides the protections of confidentiality and privilege to that patient safety data, but the bill also sets definite limitations on what can be considered confidential and privileged.

This legislation does nothing to reduce or affect other Federal, State or local legal requirements pertaining to health related information. Nor does this bill alter any existing rights or remedies available to injured patients. The bottom line is that this legislation neither strengthens nor weakens the existing system of tort and liability law.

Instead, the legislation before us creates a new, parallel system of information collection and analysis, designed to educate our doctors and protect patients' safety everywhere. This bill reflects difficult negotiations and many compromises over almost 5 years of consideration. Through the contributions of Members on both sides of the aisle, this legislation has been greatly strengthened since I first introduced it back in the 106th Congress. I have appended these remarks with an article I wrote that provides a more detailed description of the efforts that have been made to reduce medical errors and I ask unanimous consent that it will be printed in the Record.

I offer my appreciation to the many contributions from Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Kennedy, and Senators Frist, Breaux, Enzi, Sessions, Dodd, and Bingaman.

We legislate many essential issues in the Congress, but rarely can we say that what we do is a matter of life and death. This, however, is one of those issues. The time to act is long overdue. This is an area where delay will lead to deaths that can be prevented. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2003.

In the wake of September 11, 2001, I believe that it is imperative that the Nation takes every reasonable action we can to prevent terrorism, create effective response and recovery mechanisms, and find ways to minimize any impacts should an event occur.

The Congress has a key role in facilitating these actions by establishing authorities for Government agencies, establishing the legal framework in which homeland security improvements will occur, and appropriating adequate funding for the homeland security mission. Protecting our Nation's critical infrastructure is a major piece of our homeland security strategy.

The water sector has been identified as an element in our Nation's critical infrastructure since the issuance of Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63), issued in by President Clinton in May 1998, which was the first major governmental action focused on reducing the vulnerability of our Nation's critical infrastructure.

At that time, and in each document outlining homeland security responsibilities since that time, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, was designated as the lead for water infrastructure protection.

The security needs are significant in the water and wastewater sectors. There are over 16,000 publicly owned treatment works in the United States, serving almost 190 million people. These industrial facilities use large quantities of toxic chemicals in their treatment and disinfection processes. They are located near population centers and other critical infrastructure. A chemical accident would pose a serious threat. In addition, collection systems run beneath every city and town in America, creating potential corridors for travel or opportunities for access.

There are also serious public health risks associated with a disruption or service failure at a wastewater treatment plant. Treatment works clean wastewater that comes from our toilets, showers, and sewers and send it back into our rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans. Those same bodies of water are our drinking water sources. Without proper treatment, we would see the public health effects of the same type of water-borne disease outbreaks such as cholera that we saw in Iraq earlier this year due to the failure of wastewater treatment plants.

I believe that the Congress should take the risk to wastewater treatment plants seriously. Unfortunately, S. 1039, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act, provides security for our Nation's wastewater infrastructure in name, only.

First, this bill is a rollback of current law requiring vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans at drinking water utilities. In 2002, the Congress passed H.R. 3448, the Public Health and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of 2002, P.L. 107-188. This act requires community water systems to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop an emergency response plan that incorporates the results of the vulnerability assessment. Vulnerability assessments are to be submitted to EPA. The threats posed by drinking water and wastewater facilities are similar. These plants are often colocated. It makes no sense to adopt weaker standards for one sector of the industry than the other. The Bioterrorism Act ensures that water systems take basic action to first identify and then address security needs.

Second, S. 1039 increases wastewater security in name only. It does not require the most basic security precautions--completion of a vulnerability assessment and the incorporation of the results into a treatment works' emergency response plan. Under the provisions of S. 1039, we do not know if individual publicly owned treatment works will choose to complete a vulnerability assessment because there is no requirement to do so. We do not know if they will incorporate their findings into emergency response plans that are designed to protect communities surrounding those plants because there is no requirement to do so. These most basic actions are not too heavy a burden for the wastewater treatment industry to bear.

S. 1039 also does not require, and may actually preclude, the submission of vulnerability assessments that are completed to the Federal Government--a serious obstacle in the Department of Homeland Security's ability to perform its mission. Providing the results of a facility's vulnerability assessment and its emergency response plan to the Federal Government is a vital step both to ensure that vulnerability assessments are completed in critical infrastructure sectors and to ensure that the Federal Government has all of the information it requires to secure the Nation against a potential terrorist attack.

The President's National Strategy for Homeland Security, issued in 2002, states, ``A complete and thorough assessment of America's vulnerabilities will not only enable decisive near-term action, but guide the rational long-term investment of effort and resources.'' Not only does DHS plan to use vulnerability assessments to evaluate threat information and provide warnings, but also to allocate resources. I agree that one of the most efficient ways to spend limited resources is to dentify where we are vulnerable and where we are threatened, then target resources to the cross-section of those two areas.

Under S. 1039 as reported, it is unclear where DHS will get the information they require to complete a national vulnerability assessment and make resource allocation decisions that will increase the level of security in our Nation. What is clear is that DHS is likely to receive only partial information, if any, from a subset of wastewater plants that voluntarily choose to complete a vulnerability assessment and that voluntarily choose to share the information they collect. Without the best, most up to date, accurate information available, DHS will be unable to fully perform its mission.

In addition, elected officials in Congress have a constitutional oversight role over Federal agencies and the laws they implement. Under S. 1039, Congress will not be accountable to the public for the purpose or implementation of this law--Congress will not be able to request or access information from the Federal agencies because the agencies will not have such information.

At the beginning of this Congress, I introduced the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act, S. 779. This legislation mirrors existing law for drinking water systems. It requires all wastewater utilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and to develop or modify emergency response plans to incorporate the results of the vulnerability assessments. It requires that these documents be presented to the EPA for review, and it includes significant security measures designed to protect this information from unauthorized disclosure. It authorizes $185 million for assistance in completing vulnerability assessments, for immediate security improvements, and for assistance to small treatment works. It authorizes $15 million for research to identify threats, detection methods, and response actions. This bill will clearly enhance the security of our Nation by taking real actions to improve the security of wastewater treatment works.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the American people. If S. 1039 becomes law, the Federal Government will not know if publicly owned treatment works will voluntarily conduct a vulnerability assessment, if they will voluntarily implement the security needs identified,

or if they will incorporate the results into their emergency response plans, and there will be no way of finding out. The Department of Homeland Security's mission to increase the security of the country will be hindered. I believe that S. 1039 fails to take responsible, basic steps to protect our wastewater infrastructure security from terrorist attack, putting Americans at risk.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and support my alternative bill, S. 779.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of William G. Myers III to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Looking over Mr. Myers record, it is clear that we do not see eye-to- eye on environmental policy. He once complained that the ``federal government's endless promulgation of statutes and regulations harm the very environment it purports to protect.'' Mr. Myers believes that the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act's wetlands protections are examples of ``regulatory excesses.'' He has also compared the Government's management of public lands to King George's rule over the American colonies.

But policy disagreements alone are not enough to disqualify an individual from serving on our Nation's lower courts. I dare say that there has not been a judge confirmed during my almost 16 years in the Senate where the nominee and I have agreed on all issues. I believe the same could be said by any Senator who has ever served in the Senate.

For me to oppose a judicial nomination there needs to be more than just a disagreement on policy; there needs to be an issue concerning judicial temperament or competence. When reviewing the record compiled on Mr. Myers by the Judiciary Committee, I do believe there are serious deficiencies with this nomination, beyond a disagreement on policy, and I must oppose it.

First, Mr. Myers has very little litigation experience, a critical factor for serving on the circuit court level. In fact, he has never been a judge, nor has he participated in a jury trial, and only rarely has he participated in a nonjury trial. He has never been a law professor, and he has written only a few law review articles. Some candidates who I have supported in the past have lacked one kind of experience--being a judge, professor, or prolific writer--but have compensated for that gap with strength in other areas. Mr. Myers' resume, however, does not show any other such compensatory experience.

I am also greatly concerned that Mr. Myers' past actions bring into question his ability to separate his strong beliefs from his judicial duty to rule dispassionately on the law. This is a critical trait for any judge, at any level of the judiciary, and one that appears to be lacking in this nominee. For example, when he was the Interior Department Solicitor, which is the chief lawyer for the Department, he was sworn to defend the public interest and enforce Federal land regulations. However, in many actions taken by Mr. Myers, he used his position to weaken environmental regulations to the benefit of his former mining and grazing industry clients. This is a strong indication of his inability to separate his beliefs from his duty as a judge, and he must not be allowed to carry that to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

For those reasons I will oppose his nomination. In addition, as the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am distressed that the majority leadership has decided to use valuable floor time to debate a nominee with horrible environmental perspectives and no chance at confirmation, while failing to take action on many important environmental issues.

We should be enacting comprehensive power plant antipollution legislation. We should be looking for new opportunities to improve the efficiency of our cars, homes, and buildings to help curb air pollution and reduce global warming. We should pass standards to improve reliable delivery of electricity. We should agree to produce more renewable motor fuels that meet Federal Clean Air requirements. We should build a pipeline to bring needed natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 States. We should end manipulative electricity marketing practices that gouge our consumers. Finally, we should expand our use of renewable energy. We could do all these things, which would provide more energy for our country, and do them with substantial Senate support rather than debate a nomination that does not have the support necessary to be confirmed.

We also have failed to ensure that the United States continues to exercise leadership in multilateral efforts to protect the global environment. Even though the United States led the way in negotiating and signing several important international environmental treaties, we are not yet a party to these treaties because of a failure to pass necessary implementing legislation. The Law of the Sea Treaty is a perfect example. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is, unfortunately, another.

These are some of the important environmental issues the Senate should be spending its precious remaining time on, and not on divisive nominees who have no chance for confirmation.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2004, along with my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes and Feinstein. This bill provides matching Federal funds to States and localities seeking help to acquire and rehabilitate affordable housing that would otherwise be lost from the affordable housing inventory.

Affordable housing is facing a funding crisis. Across the country, the administration's proposed $1.6 billion budget cuts for Section 8, which serves nearly 3.5 million low-income households nationwide, would seriously undermine the availability of quality affordable housing. In Vermont, there are 6,080 authorized vouchers available this year. But with the proposed budget cut, Vermont could lose more than 700 vouchers next year alone. That's a loss of $4 million for housing assistance just in my small State. Over the next five years, it is estimated that Vermont could lose as many as 1,770 housing vouchers.

Affordable housing is a basic and critical need in every town and city, and these cuts are as indefensible as they are damaging. Cutting affordable housing is not about apartments and houses. It is about individuals and families, including our seniors, not having a safe and affordable place to call home. I have joined with many of my colleagues to protest these cuts.

The bill I am introducing today, the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2004, represents an effort to complement the good work being done throughout the country on Section 8 initiatives, and it strives to preserve existing affordable housing. Specifically, this bill would conserve federally subsidized housing units by providing matching grants to States and localities, seeking to preserve privately owned, affordable housing.

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would make determinations for the grants based on a number of factors, including the number of affordable housing units at risk at being lost and the local market conditions in which displaced residents would have to find comparable new housing options. These funds would make a great deal of difference in keeping affordable housing affordable. States and localities could use the funds to acquire or rehabilitate affordable housing. They could use the funds, in part, for administrative and operating expenses. Properties with mortgages insured by HUD, Section 8 project-based assisted housing, and properties that are being purchased by residents would all be eligible for the matching grant funds. I believe that flexibility with the funding would make this program more efficient and cost effective, and, most importantly, more helpful to the recipients themselves.

Over the past several months, I have heard from many of my constituents who are genuinely concerned about Vermonters who are threatened with the loss of housing. This bill would give State and local housing authorities another tool to keep people in their homes. I believe we must act now to preserve our existing stock of affordable housing.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2004, along with my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes and Feinstein. This bill provides matching Federal funds to States and localities seeking help to acquire and rehabilitate affordable housing that would otherwise be lost from the affordable housing inventory.

Affordable housing is facing a funding crisis. Across the country, the administration's proposed $1.6 billion budget cuts for Section 8, which serves nearly 3.5 million low-income households nationwide, would seriously undermine the availability of quality affordable housing. In Vermont, there are 6,080 authorized vouchers available this year. But with the proposed budget cut, Vermont could lose more than 700 vouchers next year alone. That's a loss of $4 million for housing assistance just in my small State. Over the next five years, it is estimated that Vermont could lose as many as 1,770 housing vouchers.

Affordable housing is a basic and critical need in every town and city, and these cuts are as indefensible as they are damaging. Cutting affordable housing is not about apartments and houses. It is about individuals and families, including our seniors, not having a safe and affordable place to call home. I have joined with many of my colleagues to protest these cuts.

The bill I am introducing today, the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2004, represents an effort to complement the good work being done throughout the country on Section 8 initiatives, and it strives to preserve existing affordable housing. Specifically, this bill would conserve federally subsidized housing units by providing matching grants to States and localities, seeking to preserve privately owned, affordable housing.

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would make determinations for the grants based on a number of factors, including the number of affordable housing units at risk at being lost and the local market conditions in which displaced residents would have to find comparable new housing options. These funds would make a great deal of difference in keeping affordable housing affordable. States and localities could use the funds to acquire or rehabilitate affordable housing. They could use the funds, in part, for administrative and operating expenses. Properties with mortgages insured by HUD, Section 8 project-based assisted housing, and properties that are being purchased by residents would all be eligible for the matching grant funds. I believe that flexibility with the funding would make this program more efficient and cost effective, and, most importantly, more helpful to the recipients themselves.

Over the past several months, I have heard from many of my constituents who are genuinely concerned about Vermonters who are threatened with the loss of housing. This bill would give State and local housing authorities another tool to keep people in their homes. I believe we must act now to preserve our existing stock of affordable housing.

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

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a great American, a true Vermonter and a good friend who passed away on July 11th. That friend is Laurance Spelman Rockefeller.

Thirty-five years ago, Mr. Rockefeller received the highest honor that our country can bestow upon a civilian when President Johnson awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his philanthropic and conservation efforts. That award did not culminate a lifetime of accomplishment, but rather served as a milestone for the beginning of another three-and-a-half decades of benevolent contributions by Mr. Rockefeller. In 1991, Laurance Rockefeller was again honored with the Congressional Gold Medal awarded by President George H.W. Bush.

Laurance Rockefeller was instrumental in establishing the Virgin Islands National Park and donated land for, or helped with the acquisition of 11 other national parks, national battlefields and national monuments.

In 1958 Mr. Rockefeller chaired the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. The Commission's landmark report led to creation of our national system of wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and Federally protected trails.

I knew Laurance Rockefeller and his wife, Mary French Rockefeller, as residents of and benefactors to the town of Woodstock, VT. Laurance and Mary Rockefeller preserved the character of Woodstock, as an historic village surrounded by rolling hills and farms, while also building its economic vitality. The Rockefellers built the Woodstock Inn and Suicide Six ski area into successful economic engines for the area, and established the Billings Farm and Museum. Conservation easements were also secured on surrounding lands to help protect the village from sprawl.

These projects were all undertaken with a careful eye towards sustainability. The businesses are viable enterprises and the nonprofit entities are

generously endowed and tended to by the Woodstock Foundation, also created by the Rockefellers.

Mr. Rockefeller was a quiet and unassuming man who sought no personal recognition for his work in Woodstock and truly loved the small villages and agricultural landscape of rural Vermont.

The crown jewel of the Rockefellers' contributions to Woodstock and to the Nation is the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park, encompassing the buildings and grounds of their family estate, which they donated to the United States. As the only national park dedicated to the history and future of conservation thought and practice, the park is a fitting legacy for a man known as America's leading conservationist.

Laurance will be sorely missed by all those who knew him and by those who have been able to enjoy the fruits of his conservation efforts.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate and thank Francis Matthew McFaun, an outstanding citizen and a Vermont leader in the fight against poverty. As he prepares to retire from his position as manager of the Central Vermont and White River district offices of the Vermont Department of Employment and Training, it is significant to recognize how much one person can achieve in serving others.

``Topper,'' as he is known to his colleagues, family, and friends, has had a distinguished 37-year career with the State of Vermont. He moved to Vermont in 1966 to start a pilot of the Neighborhood Youth Corps Program with the Central Vermont Community Action Agency. He moved up through the organization, quickly becoming director of the Vermont Office of Economic Opportunity. From there he began working for the Vermont Department of Employment and Training, where he has become an institution. Topper is deeply committed to improving the quality of life of Vermonters through strengthening communities and improving our workforce. He has also served with great distinction and exhibited leadership at both the State and local level and is involved with numerous community activities. From his current role as chairperson of the Barre Town Select Board to his veteran position as the Spaulding High School Varsity Ice Hockey coach, Topper is tireless in his devotion to his State.

I also have the pleasure of having his daughter, Molly McFaun, on my State staff. Molly exhibits the work ethic and compassion that has driven her father throughout his career. Topper established himself through his efforts to help others, and the legacy of his work lives on in his daughter. We are truly fortunate to have Topper and Molly working in a field where the benefits of their kindness and support are reaped by people all around the State. I thank Topper not only for his many years of exemplary service, but also for teaching his children the value that is public service.

It is people like Topper, who give so greatly of themselves without expectation of recognition or personal gain, that make our communities stronger, better places to live. I want Topper McFaun to know that his years of dedicated service have not gone unnoticed. I am proud to stand here and tell you about such a great Vermonter. I wish him and his wife, Mary Ann, best wishes as they venture into the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. President, I firmly believe that free and fair economic relations between nations will accrue to the benefit of all parties. Our country was founded on the principle that all States would benefit from the free flow of commerce between equal parties. And our national economy has proved this to be true.

These same dynamics now operate on a global scale. Commerce can now reach around the globe with ease. Communications are instantaneous, even in the most isolated places. Our trading laws must keep pace with the emerging patterns. We must move to shape the emerging global marketplace into a productive and fair system--not sit back and condemn its advances and decry the loss of old economic structures. We can either be in the lead of this evolution, or we will be sidelined by it. I believe that America can and must exert leadership. One way we must assert leadership is by the negotiation of trade agreements that will lower the barriers to trade and level the playing fields for all players.

Trade agreements come together more naturally with developed nations that share our commitment to rule of law, strong worker protections and strict environmental controls. Australia is such a country. Even so, it has been difficult to resolve the differences in our two economies and allow protections for particularly vulnerable elements of each economy. Negotiations have taken place over a considerable length of time, and no side has gotten everything they want.

The provisions in the agreement relating to dairy, for instance, are an example of not getting all that we would like. I joined a bipartisan group of 30 Senators in a letter to the chief US trade negotiator, Ambassador Robert Zoellick, expressing our concerns for our Nation's dairy farmers and requesting favorable treatment for this struggling national industry. Under this agreement, imports may amount to two- tenths of 1 percent of U.S. dairy production. While I would have preferred no market penetration by Australian dairy imports, I am confident that our industry is strong enough to meet this competition. Additionally, this agreement will open up new markets for Vermont's dairy products. I am confident Vermont farmers will be able to take strong advantage of this opportunity.

Some concerns have been raised about provisions relating to prescription drugs. Transparency provisions in this agreement related to Government procurement decisions are designed to provide equal rights of appeal. The US Trade Representative, USTR, has indicated that these provisions will not require any changes in U.S. pharmaceutical purchasing programs. There has also been discussion about a provision in this agreement related to drug reimportation. As a strong supporter of passing drug reimportation legislation, I would not want to endorse any curtailment of future drug reimportation opportunities. In this case, however, Australian law prohibits the export of any drugs purchased through its government-subsidized program, the majority of all drugs sold in Australia. As a central part of the Australian Government's drug program, there is no reason to think that this prohibition would change. But I also warn USTR that it would be unacceptable to include language similar to article 17.9.4 in future trade agreements where reimportation might be an option in the event of a change in U.S. law. I am sure that the intense discussions around these provisions over the last few days have made this point quite clearly.

As with all significant agreements, we will find flaws and challenges with this agreement as it unfolds. But as international dispute mechanisms are perfected, we become better at settling them equitably and expeditiously. The future of our economy and the health of the global economy are dependent upon us improving our ability to devise more equitable and open trading systems.

The disparities between the economies of the developed world and the less-developed world continue to grow. This agreement comes between economies of equal strength, even though not of equal size. The experience we gain here in how to remove barriers to trade while protecting vital interests will inform us of how to more successfully tackle the difficult trade relations between our economy and those less-stable economies. Some would argue that the easiest way to relate to weaker economies is to put up greater barriers to trade--to prevent the export of any U.S. capital and prevent the entrance of any lower- priced goods into our market. I am more of an optimist than that. I believe that we can do better than lock out whole sectors of the global economy. I believe we must make efforts, learn from our mistakes, and move ahead to strengthen the flow of commerce, the equity of business and the opportunity for all people to earn a living.

Mr. President, I have another engagement I am supposed to be at now.

Mr. President, I find it sad and unfortunate that the Senate is spending crucial time on this divisive issue, driven so obviously by partisan politics rather than sound public policy. We know this amendment has no chance of passage, so why are we here? Just a week after Secretary Ridge detailed the real threats that the Nation faces right here at home, why are we instead debating the vague and questionable dangers to the institution of marriage. We should be working to fund homeland security, but that bill languishes while we launch into a cultural war.

As of today, the Senate has passed only 1 of the necessary 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2005. We need to fund veterans health care, educational programs, worker protection, job training, Head Start, environmental preservation, crop insurance, and food safety. We need to reauthorize our Nation's welfare programs. Our highways crumble while the Transportation bill is stalled and we take no action.

These are the priorities of the American people. But instead of facing these most basic responsibilities, we are here today to make judgment calls about people's personal lifestyles. I must ask, where are the priorities of the majority leadership? How is it that we have to come to use the Senate floor as a warmup for political conventions, bowing to extreme religious agendas rather than the agenda of the American people? How did this happen?

I am afraid the answer can be summed up very easily. We are here because of election year posturing.

I find it ironic that some in this Chamber want to amend our Nation's most sacred and historic document because of some unfounded and irrational fear. It is ironic because these are the same people who have argued that we should not trample on States rights. Yet they think our States are not capable of deciding how marriage should be defined. I believe our States are not only capable but deserving to define marriage in the way they see fit. Every State will bring its own approach, and I am proud the way my State led the Nation in addressing this issue more than 4 years ago.

The Vermont Legislature, a part-time body made up of farmers and teachers, passed the civil unions legislation. They gave gay and lesbian couples all the same legal rights extended to married couples, and the legislature did so in a bipartisan fashion, amid rancorous protests by some who proclaimed Vermont's lawmakers will suffer dire consequences as a result of this decision.

I can tell you today that all of these fears have been unfounded, and my home State is better off for the experience. Having witnessed Vermont's approach, I beg to differ with anyone in this body who argues that States are not able to decide this issue for themselves. Here in the Senate we should be spending our time debating legislation that is inclusive, not exclusive. This body did so when it recently passed a hate crimes bill to extend the definition of hate crimes to those who are targeted solely on sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

We should be focusing our energies on passing bills such as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and the Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act. I am proud to support these bills, and I am even more proud because they continue in the great American tradition of inclusiveness and tolerance and acceptance.

I will vote against this constitutional amendment, and I urge the majority leadership to take up, rather than push aside, the critical pending legislation that so desperately needs and calls for our attention.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment over the procedural bind the Senate is in on the class action reform bill.

Last October I was one of the 59 Senators who voted to allow the Senate to proceed to the Class Action Fairness Act because I believed that it was an issue that should be considered and debated in the Senate. I still believe that this is an appropriate matter to be considered in the Senate, and was looking forward to a constructive debate on the legislation this week.

In meetings with both supporters and opponents of the legislation I have continually stressed that there needs to be a fair and open debate on the matter. To me, this means that Senators must be allowed to offer amendments to the bill. Unfortunately, even before the debate had even really begun, the majority leader came to the floor and created a procedural situation where no Senator would be allowed to offer an amendment, on class action reform or any other issue.

It is regrettable that this path was chosen for consideration of this legislation. I find this to be especially true when the minority leader has offered to limit the number of amendments to the legislation, even though he opposes the bill. If the Republican leadership had accepted this offer we could have been working on substance rather than discussing procedure for the last few days.

As this debate has not been free or fair, in fact no amendments have been considered, debated and voted upon, I cannot at this time support limiting debate on the Class Action Fairness Act. I am hopeful that the majority will reconsider its rejection of the minority leader's offer to proceed on this legislation with limited amendments and that we can then begin to actually debate the legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``High Performance Green Buildings Act of 2004.''

I would like to thank Senator Lautenberg and the other cosponsors for working with me to introduce this important legislation.

Preliminary studies are showing that high-performance green buildings generate huge savings in operations and maintenance 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. The outcome is huge savings in health related costs. All of these savings are generated, while sustaining very little impact on their surrounding environment.

In the United States, buildings account for: 36 percent of total energy use; 65 percent of electricity consumption; 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions; 30 percent of raw materials use; 30 percent of waste output and 12 percent of potable water consumption.

Why not build buildings that strive to conserve our precious resources and reduce the harmful pollutants that are damaging to the environment?

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 US Green Building Council, there are 118 certified green buildings across the United States with 1,395 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 work place for its employees.

The General Services Administration, GSA, is the largest landlord in the United States, with over 8,700 buildings in their current inventory. This legislation creates an office within GSA to oversee the green building efforts of agencies within the government. GSA is a natural leader to focus on our federal buildings and ensure that they are safe, healthy, and efficient.

This legislation will coordinate the efforts within the Federal Government to promote high-performance green buildings, provide public outreach, and expand existing research.

The bill creates an Interagency Steering Committee to advise the Office within GSA. The Committee will be comprised of key representatives of each relevant agency, state and local governments, nongovernment organizations, and experts within the building community. This Committee will ensure that the Federal Government stays up to date with technology and the latest advancements to ensure that high- performance buildings operate efficiently while continuing to provide a healthier environment for the occupants.

In addition, research efforts will be expanded to focus on buildings and the impacts that their systems have on human health and worker productivity. We just don't know enough. Are we making our employees sick by providing poor workspace?

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 into account life-cycle costing. This means that we allow our financial experts to factor in savings that green buildings generate over time, and don't 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 50 years. In the times of soaring budget deficits, it is imperative that 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 also focuses on providing healthier, more efficient school facilities for our children. The bill provides $10 million in grants to state and local education agencies for technical assistance and the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, Tools for Schools Program. 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 that these systems are having on student health and productivity. Our children deserve to learn in an environment that is safe and conducive to learning.

Lastly, this bill will promote leadership within the Federal Government and provide incentives for government agencies to build high-performance green buildings. It also creates a clearinghouse to keep individuals and entities, including Congress and the government, informed on the information and services that the Office will provide.

I strongly encourage your support of the ``High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2004.'' This has been a long time coming and will benefit all of us.

I ask unanimous consent that the ``High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2004'' be printed in the Record.