Floor Statements

Mr. President, We have all heard of the war on poverty, but I fear that 40 years after that war began, there is a new war afoot, a war on people in poverty. And the latest assault in this war threatens to leave thousands of people homeless. I am speaking about the Bush administration's plan to make substantial changes in the way our Government helps our poorest citizens secure housing.

It is not hyperbole, in my view, to say that this change to the Section 8 voucher program could have disastrous effects. Section 8, administered by the department of Housing and Urban Development, helps nearly 2 million poor families and disabled citizens pay for housing with vouchers that have traditionally covered the full cost of their rent.

But under the rule change, the reimbursements will no longer cover the full costs. As a result, housing authorities around the country will have to cut back on the number of vouchers they offer.

For fiscal year 2005, the President's request shortchanges all housing vouchers now in use by $1.6 billion and could result in further cuts in the years ahead. This request would also remove key provisions of the Section 8 program that protect families with the lowest incomes, such as maintaining rent payments at 30 percent of a resident's income.

In my home state of Vermont, there are 6,080 authorized vouchers available this year, but Vermont stands to lose 740 of these by next year with the rule change. That translates to a loss of more than $4 million in housing assistance in Vermont. And this scenario could indeed get worse: it is estimated that my state stands to lose up to 1, 770 housing vouchers by the year 2009.

It is important to remind ourselves that we're not talking about just numbers here. These are families--real families--who will be at risk of not having a place to live.

I recently read in the Washington Post that the Bush administration is making thee changes in an effort to ``constrain rapid growth in the program's spending.'' However, the increased demand for Section 8 housing arises because more people need help in our ailing economy.

Every day in our country, working families are forced to turn to emergency shelters and food banks because they cannot afford the high cost of rent, child care and transportation. I believe this change in section 8 will add greatly to those numbers, while undermining our deeply held premise that work leads to self-sufficiency.

Every day we hear the term ``working poor,'' but I'm afraid we do not take the time to fully understand its meaning.

All of this prompts me to ask, once again, where are our nation's priorities? We continue to give out tax breaks to millionaires despite an ever-mounting deficit. We pour billions of dollars into fighting a war in Iraq for which there is no end in sight. And we will be spending billions more--there is another $25 billion request before us now--to rebuild that country while our own nation's poorest citizens cannot afford housing.

If I may borrow a line from Rita Markley, the executive director of the largest homeless services program in my state, ``We've got to remind people that Homeland Security starts with a home.''

It is unfortunate that President Bush continues to find fault with a program that has demonstrated such success. As the Congress deliberates the fiscal year 2005 budget, I will continue to work to protect the Section 8 program.

Forty years ago, when President Johnson declared war on poverty, he highlighted this nation's commitment ``to pursue victory over the most ancient of mankind's enemies.''

I fear that we have lost sight of the enemy, at the expense of those who needed this victory the most.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Edwin I. Colodny, a native son of Burlington, VT, as this year's recipient of the Burlington Business Association's Nate Harris Award. This award is conferred annually on an individual who exhibits the enthusiasm and dedication to maintain and improve the economic vitality of the Burlington region. Ed has supported the Burlington and greater Vermont community in so many ways that all Vermonters owe him a debt of gratitude.

Ed was born in 1926 in Burlington and graduated from Burlington High School in 1944. He went on to receive an A.B. degree from the University of Rochester in 1948, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School in 1951. From 1975 to 1991, Ed was president and chief executive officer of US Airways, Inc. and was also president and chief executive officer of US Airways Group from 1978 to 1991, and chairman of the board from 1978 to 1992.

More recently, Ed served as the interim president of the University of Vermont and interim president and chief executive officer of Fletcher Allen Health Care, Vermont's premiere medical treatment facility, during critical change periods at both institutions. Ed also served as chairman of the board of Comsat Corporation, a leading provider of global satellite and digital networking services, which merged into Lockheed Martin Corporation.

I have admired the breadth and depth of Ed's business experience and his ability to collaborate with all partners involved in complex matters. His career-long dedication to fair and equitable treatment for workers and a desire to look for winning solutions to problems has set him apart from many of his peers. He understands the dynamics of a healthy business climate while maintaining a respect for the different needs and expertise of other participants.

Ed works tirelessly for the well being of Vermont and its people. He now serves as chair of a Vermont committee to clean up Lake Champlain, one of Vermont's natural jewels. He continues to sit on numerous non- profit boards such as Vermont Law School, Shelburne Museum, Vermont Symphony Orchestra, Vermont Mozart Festival and he is of counsel to the law firm of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew in Burlington, VT.

There are a very few people in this world who have given so much and asked so little in return. I hope Ed Colodny knows that his years of service have not gone unnoticed. This award shows how much he is appreciated, even though it is impossible for us to fully recognize his many contributions.

I am so proud to stand here and tell you about such a great Vermonter. I wish him my deepest congratulations for an award he so greatly deserves.

Mr. President, May 4 is World Asthma Day. Today people from across the globe will raise awareness of asthma and its impact on the lives of those millions of people who suffer from it. It should also be the day we in government recall our duty to safeguard the health of all Americans.

Asthma is a lifetime disease. It is triggered by a variety of factors, including allergens, cigarette smoke, viral infections, foods, weather changes, and air pollution. Air passages become inflamed, making it difficult for sufferers to breathe, and sometimes resulting in critical emergency situations. It is dangerous, and it is costly. Our country spends around $3.2 billion every year just to treat asthmatic children.

That is why I am particularly concerned that asthma is on the rise, and that polluting industries and cars are making matters worse. Seventeen million Americans suffer from asthma. It is the most common chronic health problem among our Nation's children, causing missed school days, restricted activity, and costly medical bills. According to the American Lung Association, 9,000 children and 42,000 adults in Washington, DC alone have asthma.

Scientific research has increasingly linked air pollution from power plants and tailpipe exhaust to asthma. For example, researchers at the University of Southern California recently discovered that children living in high-ozone areas and participating in outdoor sports were three times more likely to develop asthma than less active kids in less polluted areas. The scientists explain that children who exercise outdoors take in more of the dirty air than other kids, leaving them more susceptible to airway damage.

A new report by the Harvard Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School expands

upon such research by linking global warming gases to increased incidence of allergies and asthma in the inner city. The report states that rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, due mainly to fossil fuel combustion, not only trap more heat, but they promote greater pollen and mold growth and associated asthma.

On World Asthma Day, the air may not be clear, but the message is: We must immediately and dramatically reduce smog- and ozone-forming pollution and global warming gases in order to protect public health. The President's Clear Skies initiative won't do the job, neither will the EPA's new administrative rules that just postpone real pollution reduction for a decade or more.

I urge the administration and the Congress to put aside partisan differences and polluters' special interests to protect the precious lives of those we represent. To live is to breathe. Until all Americans can breathe freely, our work is not yet done.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004 with my colleague Senator Sarbanes. We are joined by our colleagues, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Waxman, and others, who will be introducing the House companion bill today.

I was horrified, as I imagine we all were, when it was first reported that lead levels in DC public water system was significantly higher than Federal guidelines, and had been so for at least two years. I asked myself the same thing thousands of DC residents were asking themselves--why weren't we told about this sooner. How much water did I drink? How much water did my children drink? What are the effects of lead in our blood stream? What are the long-term effects? What are we going to do about it?

This is a pretty sad situation no matter where you live, but it is especially upsetting when you live in the Capital

of the free world. Clearly, mistakes were made and changes are needed-- because if it can happen in Washington, DC or Boston, it can happen anywhere.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member, held a hearing on this issue last month, and we heard some pretty compelling testimony from DC residents, health experts, risk management professionals and government officials.

But we are going to do more than just hold hearings; today we are introducing the Lead-Free Drinking Waste Act of 2004.

Our bill will overhaul the Safe Drinking Water Act to strengthen the Federal rules governing lead testing and regulations in our public water systems to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--infants, children, pregnant women, and new moms--are not harmed by lead in the drinking water.

Specifically, the bill requires the EPA to re-evaluate the current regulatory structure to figure out if it really provides the level of public health protection required.

The bill calls on the EPA to establish a maximum contaminant level for lead at the tap, and if that is not practical given the presence of lead inside home plumbing systems, the bill requires EPA to re-evaluate the current action level for lead to ensure that vulnerable populations such as infants, children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers receive adequate protection.

I look forward to working with EPA on this evaluation to determine which approach is most feasible and which provides the greatest level of public health protection.

EPA has three choices--keep current standard, an ``action level'' at 15 parts per billion; lower the current action level below 15 parts per billion; or establish a ``maximum contaminant load.''

For example, it is clear that a maximum contaminant level, which is measured at the water treatment plant, would do little to protect people from lead-contaminated drinking water at their faucets. Our bill requires that standards be measured at the top.

It is also clear that a low lead action level measured at the tap could provide more protection than a high MCL measured anywhere in the system if there were extremely strong and effective public notification procedures in place.

Public notice is the key to success of any lead regulation-parents say to me, ``If only I had known, I could have protected my family.'' It is our job to be sure the public notice system we have in place gets people the information they need when they need it.

The bill will require that information such as the number of homes tested, the lead levels found, the areas of the community in which they were located, and the disproportionate adverse health effects of lead on infants, be made public immediately upon detection of lead.

In addition, the bill requires that, as part of routine testing conducted, any residents whose homes test high for lead receive notification within 14 days, and appropriate medical referrals.

Finally, we don't want the day of an exceedance to be the first time people have heard about lead in drinking water. The bill establishes a basic public education program to ensure that people have a basic understanding that lead may be present in drinking water and what the corrective actions might be even before their water system detects a problem.

Right now, EPA can't say if we have a national problem or not. We need one-time nationwide testing for lead in drinking water at all water systems to determine if DC is an isolated case or if there are other ``sleeping giants'' out there.

The bill requires increased water testing and lead remediation in schools and day-care centers nationwide. This provision exists in law today, but it was affected by previous litigation. This bill corrects the problem by requiring the Administrator to execute this program if States choose not to. It is wholly unacceptable to do anything less than provide a learning environment for our next generation that does not degrade their intellectual capacity. Our bill provides $150 million over five years for this program. And we strengthen existing requirements to ensure that ALL lead service lines will be replaced by a public water system at a rate of 10 percent per year until they are gone. It provides more Federal funding to upgrade water distribution systems to replace lead service lines.

This is common sense--let's get rid of the lead in our distribution systems and get rid of the lead in our water.

Our bill makes the water systems responsible for replacing lead service lines, including the privately-owned sections, once a system exceeds lead standards. Homeowners have the final say in whether their line is replaced. We provide $1 billion over five years for lead service line replacement.

The EPA estimates that our Nation needs 265 billion dollars to maintain and improve its drinking water infrastructure over the next twenty years. If we don't address this, we will be facing more and more health and environmental issues as our Nation's water infrastructure degrades.

Lead service lines are only one part of the picture. Leaded solder was banned in 1987. However, ``lead-free'' plumbing fixtures are currently allowed to have eight percent lead. Our bill bans leaded plumbing fixtures and components.

It is time to get the lead out of our pipes, out of our water, out of our families and out of our lives. Safe drinking water is not a privilege; it is a right--whether you live in Washington, DC, or Washington State or Washington County, VT.

We hope to move this bill this year. My Committee is scheduled to consider water infrastructure legislation later this month, and I think the ``Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004'' would be an important addition to that bill.

I just want to say it has been an honor to work with Senator Sarbanes, Congresswoman Norton, and Congressman Waxman on this vitally important issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004 with my colleague Senator Sarbanes. We are joined by our colleagues, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Waxman, and others, who will be introducing the House companion bill today.

I was horrified, as I imagine we all were, when it was first reported that lead levels in DC public water system was significantly higher than Federal guidelines, and had been so for at least two years. I asked myself the same thing thousands of DC residents were asking themselves--why weren't we told about this sooner. How much water did I drink? How much water did my children drink? What are the effects of lead in our blood stream? What are the long-term effects? What are we going to do about it?

This is a pretty sad situation no matter where you live, but it is especially upsetting when you live in the Capital

of the free world. Clearly, mistakes were made and changes are needed-- because if it can happen in Washington, DC or Boston, it can happen anywhere.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member, held a hearing on this issue last month, and we heard some pretty compelling testimony from DC residents, health experts, risk management professionals and government officials.

But we are going to do more than just hold hearings; today we are introducing the Lead-Free Drinking Waste Act of 2004.

Our bill will overhaul the Safe Drinking Water Act to strengthen the Federal rules governing lead testing and regulations in our public water systems to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--infants, children, pregnant women, and new moms--are not harmed by lead in the drinking water.

Specifically, the bill requires the EPA to re-evaluate the current regulatory structure to figure out if it really provides the level of public health protection required.

The bill calls on the EPA to establish a maximum contaminant level for lead at the tap, and if that is not practical given the presence of lead inside home plumbing systems, the bill requires EPA to re-evaluate the current action level for lead to ensure that vulnerable populations such as infants, children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers receive adequate protection.

I look forward to working with EPA on this evaluation to determine which approach is most feasible and which provides the greatest level of public health protection.

EPA has three choices--keep current standard, an ``action level'' at 15 parts per billion; lower the current action level below 15 parts per billion; or establish a ``maximum contaminant load.''

For example, it is clear that a maximum contaminant level, which is measured at the water treatment plant, would do little to protect people from lead-contaminated drinking water at their faucets. Our bill requires that standards be measured at the top.

It is also clear that a low lead action level measured at the tap could provide more protection than a high MCL measured anywhere in the system if there were extremely strong and effective public notification procedures in place.

Public notice is the key to success of any lead regulation-parents say to me, ``If only I had known, I could have protected my family.'' It is our job to be sure the public notice system we have in place gets people the information they need when they need it.

The bill will require that information such as the number of homes tested, the lead levels found, the areas of the community in which they were located, and the disproportionate adverse health effects of lead on infants, be made public immediately upon detection of lead.

In addition, the bill requires that, as part of routine testing conducted, any residents whose homes test high for lead receive notification within 14 days, and appropriate medical referrals.

Finally, we don't want the day of an exceedance to be the first time people have heard about lead in drinking water. The bill establishes a basic public education program to ensure that people have a basic understanding that lead may be present in drinking water and what the corrective actions might be even before their water system detects a problem.

Right now, EPA can't say if we have a national problem or not. We need one-time nationwide testing for lead in drinking water at all water systems to determine if DC is an isolated case or if there are other ``sleeping giants'' out there.

The bill requires increased water testing and lead remediation in schools and day-care centers nationwide. This provision exists in law today, but it was affected by previous litigation. This bill corrects the problem by requiring the Administrator to execute this program if States choose not to. It is wholly unacceptable to do anything less than provide a learning environment for our next generation that does not degrade their intellectual capacity. Our bill provides $150 million over five years for this program. And we strengthen existing requirements to ensure that ALL lead service lines will be replaced by a public water system at a rate of 10 percent per year until they are gone. It provides more Federal funding to upgrade water distribution systems to replace lead service lines.

This is common sense--let's get rid of the lead in our distribution systems and get rid of the lead in our water.

Our bill makes the water systems responsible for replacing lead service lines, including the privately-owned sections, once a system exceeds lead standards. Homeowners have the final say in whether their line is replaced. We provide $1 billion over five years for lead service line replacement.

The EPA estimates that our Nation needs 265 billion dollars to maintain and improve its drinking water infrastructure over the next twenty years. If we don't address this, we will be facing more and more health and environmental issues as our Nation's water infrastructure degrades.

Lead service lines are only one part of the picture. Leaded solder was banned in 1987. However, ``lead-free'' plumbing fixtures are currently allowed to have eight percent lead. Our bill bans leaded plumbing fixtures and components.

It is time to get the lead out of our pipes, out of our water, out of our families and out of our lives. Safe drinking water is not a privilege; it is a right--whether you live in Washington, DC, or Washington State or Washington County, VT.

We hope to move this bill this year. My Committee is scheduled to consider water infrastructure legislation later this month, and I think the ``Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004'' would be an important addition to that bill.

I just want to say it has been an honor to work with Senator Sarbanes, Congresswoman Norton, and Congressman Waxman on this vitally important issue.

Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I want to express my serious concern with the content of the amendment offered by Senator Domenici. This amendment differs even from the surprise energy bill that was introduced on February 12, 2004, and placed directly on the Senate's calendar.

Senators should make no mistake, this legislation is not the product of bipartisan consensus in the Senate committees of jurisdiction. In most respects, this amendment is the energy bill conference report we have already defeated. And most importantly, it is not the right energy policy for America.

I agree with Senator Daschle that we should try to reach consensus on targeted pieces of energy legislation. We could pass legislation on issues such as renewable motor fuels, as Senator Daschle has proposed with his amendment. We could enact fiscally responsible extensions of needed energy tax provisions, such as the wind energy tax credit. National electricity reliability standards are another area in which Senator Cantwell and I believe there could be agreement and we could pass a bill.

But there should be no agreement on the poor environment policy that is contained in this amendment. The Senate should reject this amendment, and oppose cloture.

As with the energy bill conference report, nearly a hundred sections of this amendment are in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We were not consulted on any of these provisions, and I have repeatedly raised concerns about them on the Senate floor.

This amendment does not represent the kind of forward-looking balanced energy policy that our Nation needs. The Senate should be able to ensure that our constituents have reliable electric power without polluting their drinking water. Our constituents deserve cleaner gasoline without requiring them to breath dirtier air. We should be able to promote renewable energy without waiving environmental laws.

This amendment seriously harms the environment. The supporters have said that a waiver of liability for MTBE producers is not contained in this amendment. That does not make the motor fuels provisions good or workable public policy. Though we know MTBE is environmentally harmful, the amendment would allow this product to be used for 10 more years before we pull it off of the market. In addition, the amendment allows the President to overturn the MTBE ban prior to June 30, 2014, and continue its use indefinitely.

The amendment unravels the ozone designation process in the Clean Air Act by delaying compliance with the national health-based air quality ozone standards until the air in the dirtiest city is cleaned up. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has ever considered this damaging provision. It is a leftover from the failed energy bill conference report.

Changing cities' ozone compliance deadlines under the Clean Air Act doesn't increase our Nation's energy supplies. Exposing the public to continued levels of harmful dangerous air pollution emissions for far more time than allowed under existing law guarantees thousands of more asthma attacks, more hospital visits and more cases of respiratory distress, disease and illness. Recently, the EPA announced that there are record numbers of Americans, more than 165 million, who are breathing unhealthy air.

The change is also unfair to States that have worked hard to achieve compliance with the Clean Air Act's health-based national standards. Why should areas that have done little or nothing to reduce emissions be given a free pass from halting local pollution? This amendment also provides unprecedented relief for a single region of the country from application of the entire Clean Air Act, without a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee or Senate consideration.

The amendment continues the administration's drive to greater dependency on old technologies and fuel systems. This focus will increase greenhouse gas emissions and keep us on the wrong path that increases the risks from global warming and climate change.

This amendment also continues to include language from the failed energy bill that exempts oil and gas exploration and production activities from the Clean Water Act stormwater program. The Clean Water Act requires permits for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. The amendment changes the Act to provide a special exemption for oil and gas construction activities from stormwater pollution control requirements. The scope of the provision is extremely broad. Stormwater runoff typically contains pollutants such as oil and grease, chemicals, nutrients, metals, bacteria, and particulates.

I have told colleagues this before but EPA estimates that this change would exempt at least 30,000 small oil and gas sites from clean water requirements. In addition, every construction site in the oil and gas industry larger than 5 acres

would be exempt as well. The large sites have held permits for 10 years or more. That is a terrible rollback of current law. I want Senators to imagine trying to explain to constituents why an oil drilling site that had to comply with the Clean Water Act for 10 years suddenly no longer needs to do so.

So let's review the contents of this amendment. This amendment pollutes our surface and groundwater by exempting oil and gas development from provisions of the Clean Water Act. It pollutes our drinking water by allowing MTBE to seep into our public and private drinking water systems for 10 more years. The amendment pollutes our land by accelerating development of energy installations on public lands, including parks, wildlife refuges, and sensitive areas. And this amendment pollutes our air in many different ways. It extends pollution compliance deadlines and continues to avoid serious progress in cleaning up our air.

There are too many serious problems with this amendment. We should not invoke cloture on it. The American people do not want energy security at the expense of the environmental quality. We should be passing the pieces of the energy bill where we can reach agreement to do so, like those issues I outlined.

We should not be rushing to pass legislation with such serious consequences. This is an aggressive, overreaching amendment, and it is deeply flawed. I will vote against cloture, and other Senators should as well.

Mr. President, today I recognize Sister Janice Ryan, a native of Fairfield, as this year's recipient of the Kids On The Block Vermont Puppet's Choice Award winner. This award is conferred annually by Kids on the Block--Vermont, a theatrical troupe that performs with puppets to deliver messages of personal safety, diversity, and acceptance of disabilities. As an honoree, Sister Janice is being acknowledged for her outstanding contributions to children and families statewide.

I have admired Sister Janice ever since I first met her. Her career- long dedication to education and to helping those who need it most has encompassed serving in many capacities, including teacher, professor, administrator, advocate, mentor and role model. Each one of these alone are worthy of praise in their own right.

One of Sister Janice's first of many outstanding accomplishments was the development of the special education program at Trinity College, where she served as a professor, Chair of Education and President. She continued on that path of service in helping to pass groundbreaking legislation that ensured the educational rights of children with disabilities.

Sister Janice's passion and commitment to the children of Vermont and the Nation is unsurpassed. From 1995 to 1999 Sister Janice served as Education Director on my staff. Her experience was invaluable. I am forever indebted to her for her service.

All who know Sister Janice know how dedicated she has been her entire life in serving others. She now serves as the Deputy Director for the Vermont Department of Corrections. There are very few people in this world who have given so much and asked so little in return. I hope Sister Janice knows that her years of giving have not gone unnoticed. This award shows how much she is appreciated even though it is impossible for us to fully recognize her contributions.

I am so proud to stand here and tell you about such a great Vermonter. I wish her my deepest congratulations for an award she so greatly deserves. Everyone who has the opportunity to benefit from Sister Janice's service is extremely lucky.

Mr. President, I listened to the Senator's very eloquent and well-prepared speech of the problems that occurred prior to 9/11. We all understand and know how bad they were.

I rise to speak about an issue that has been with us for a long time and for which we have had responsibility and have done a pretty good job at making sure everything would turn out all right. I want to talk about clean air, the environment, and areas where we have made tremendous progress.

As we mark Earth Day tomorrow, rather than celebrating the environmental legacy, I am afraid we are fighting harder than ever to protect our progress. Since the day he came into office, President Bush has worked to gut more than 34 years of hard work by weakening many of our Nation's standing environmental laws, some of which were signed into law by his father.

Air pollution is causing 70,000 premature deaths a year in the United States. Yet this Bush administration has proposed one of the biggest rollbacks of the Clean Air Act in history. Science tells us more than 600,000 women and children are at risk from mercury contamination. Yet this Bush administration has proposed to violate a legal requirement to reduce mercury emissions from powerplants.

As we approach another summer, 40 percent of the U.S. rivers and lakes remain too polluted for fishing or swimming. In spite of this fact this Bush administration has proposed fewer bodies of water to be protected by the Clean Air Act. Toxic waste sites continue to be added to the Superfund while the Bush administration continues to cut funding for the program and refuses to reauthorize the ``polluter pays'' law.

The Earth continues to warm and this Bush administration refuses to act to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. This Bush administration has a growing credibility gap, maybe even a credibility chasm, on environmental policy. The President has lost the trust of the American people when it comes to the environment.

As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I believe we have an obligation to maintain and enforce the environmental laws already on the books and also to strengthen them. Unfortunately, our President is moving us backward instead of leading us forward. I hope we can once again celebrate Earth Day by showing more respect for our environment.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator for illuminating, pointing out all of the problems created by this administration. As we go forward, the challenge we now have is to make sure no more occur.

Many Members on both sides of the aisle are deeply concerned about what is happening to our environment on this Earth Day. We know that all Members have to continue to alert this Nation of what the policies are doing to this Nation.

I would like to add that we have both witnessed all this. I don't know how the Senator feels, but I feel perhaps I have not done as much as I could have, as much as I would like to do.

We have to work together to make sure this terrible onslaught of destroying our environmental laws stops. And I know the Senator joins me in that pledge. And that we will do what we can to not get weaker but hopefully get stronger.

Madam President, in 2 weeks, this Nation will celebrate Earth Day. The first Earth Day was in 1970, 34 years ago. For three and a half decades, people from all walks of life have gathered on April 22 to celebrate the environment.

Since the first Earth Day, our Nation has had seven Presidents, including our current leader, President Bush. Four of the six former Presidents were Republicans: President Nixon, President

Ford, President Reagan, and former President Bush.

Each of these former Presidents has left their mark on our Nation's environment. For the next 10 minutes, I want to review the major policy and legislative accomplishments--and there were many--of these former Presidents.

At the same time, I will point out what the administration--the current Bush administration--is doing to that legacy left by four former Presidents.

That contrast is stark. Many of you would be surprised to learn that President Nixon's lasting policy legacy may well be on the environment. President Nixon signed into law some of the most comprehensive and sweeping environmental laws. Here is a list on this chart: National Environmental Protection Act, which was the basis for a lot of these situations; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; Endangered Species Act; Marine Mammal Protection Act; and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

We would all agree this is an impressive list. For the sake of time, I will not read the list for each of the subsequent three Republican Presidents. But the list is, in some cases, equally impressive.

Let's look at President Ford. The chart shows his greatest environmental accomplishment may be the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The bill helped reduce our Nation's solid waste output and has increased reuse and recycling.

Now let's go to President Reagan's list on this chart. This is amazing to some of us who didn't think we necessarily were doing much. The list includes: the Endangered Species Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Water Act reintroduced; Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, amending RCRA; Safe Drink Water Act amended; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act; Nuclear Waste Policy Act; Water Resources Development Act, and the Lacy Act amended.

They all built great environmental records that make all of us proud. I was Republican at the time, and we were proud of the environmental record these Presidents produced.

Now I want to go back to President Bush, senior, for a moment. His list was fairly solid. His greatest environmental achievement may have been the Clean Air Act. Being on that committee at the time, I was involved in negotiating these changes. It wasn't easy. Sometimes we all have to give a little to get a lot. But there were results from his efforts.

Now we come to the current President Bush. Remember, we are simply looking at Republican Presidents and their significant environmental records. We are not going to the Democratic Presidents. Let's look at his chart. There it is. There is nothing there. It is blank. There is not one legislative accomplishment of importance on the environmental issue. None.

I bet you would like to know what they have been doing for the last 4 years on environmental policy. Or maybe you would not. I will tell you anyway.

The Bush administration has been at war with the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration has proposed to gut the Clean Water Act. The Bush administration has bankrupted Superfund, ending the cleanup of toxic waste sites. The Bush administration has slashed funding for drinking water and wastewater. The Bush administration has slowed and almost shut down environmental enforcement.

The next chart--need I continue?

Here is President Bush's record. What are these on the chart? These are environmental rollbacks. If we can take a look at this chart, it says: Weakening the new source review section of the Clean Air Act; no Federal oversight on the cleanup of nearly 300,000 miles of rivers and 5 million acres of lakes; delays in requiring national pollutant discharge elimination system permits; opens more public land for toxic waste dumps; loosens regulations on mercury emissions; exempts Pentagon from the ESA and MMPA rules; exemptions from Montreal Protocol for the pesticide methylbromide; withdrew the TMLL rule set to take effect under the Clean Water Act; increased fuel efficiency standards by a mere 1.5 miles per gallon over 3 years; capped wilderness designation at 22.8 million acres nationwide, no more; Clear Skies plan curbs mercury emissions to only 2 to 14 tons reduction by 2010; does not pursue legal investigations of polluting facilities accused of violating Clean Air Act and water standards; also, they have underfunded Superfund.

The administration has a growing credibility gap, maybe even a credibility chasm on air pollution policy and environmental policy in general. I believe the President has lost the trust of the American people when it comes to the environment.

There are opportunities for him to rebuild this trust, but I doubt that any of the suggestions that have been given will be taken seriously.

When this President came into office, I had the greatest hopes that we could all work together to solve the problems facing the American public. But to put it mildly, I have been greatly disappointed.

The former Presidents I mentioned earlier built a legacy of environmental progress. This legacy is being dismantled. We can only hope that a future President will look back and work to rebuild our environmental protections to make sure this Nation can go on to a better and a healthier future.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Snowe-Dodd amendment to add $6 billion more in child care funding to the welfare bill that is before the Senate.

There is no issue more important than child care assistance in the context of this reauthorization. I commend Senators Snowe and Dodd for their leadership on this issue.

Child care assistance is critical for a number of reasons.

First, there is a strong connection between access to child care and the ability of parents to join and stay in the workforce.

Second, quality child care is critical to building the foundations for school readiness and later academic success.

Third, states are facing tough economic times and they are cutting back on support for child care. Our children need additional help from the Federal Government.

Child care is the No. 1 issue facing families today. Seventy-five percent of American children under the age of five spend at least part of their day in child care.

In Vermont, over 80 percent of women with children under the age of six are in the workforce.

Without access to child care, these families are often forced to leave their employment and seek public assistance.

We must support additional child care funding in order to support low-income parents and help them remain in the workforce.

Quality child care helps lay the groundwork for school readiness and success later in life. We know that the most crucial time for a child's brain development is from birth to 5 years old.

Elementary and secondary education are extremely important.

But without a positive, high-quality experience in the earliest stages of development, too many children are set up for failure in elementary, middle and high school.

By adopting the Snowe-Dodd amendment, we will give more parents the power to choose high-quality child care for their children and give those children the opportunity to get the most out of their early years.

If we are truly serious about closing the achievement gap among our students, and between the United States and our international competitors, then funding for high-quality early childhood care is the place to begin.

The States are facing tough financial situations. The General Accounting Office found that since January 2001, twenty-three States have made changes that would decrease the availability of child care assistance; while only nine States made changes that could increase child care availability.

I want to underscore this point.

According to the GAO, nearly half of the States are decreasing the availability of child care for working families. And this report may just be the tip of the iceberg. Federal funding is critical to reverse this trend.

My colleagues must understand the importance of this issue. By adopting this amendment, we can help families move off of welfare permanently. Or we can prevent them from needing welfare assistance in the first place.

I see this amendment not as a choice, but as a necessity. I urge my colleagues to support the Snowe-Dodd amendment, to support our working families and to support our youngest children.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me.

This is a very important amendment. Inscribed on a wall in a side room of the Capitol is a wonderful statement of Theodore Roosevelt reminding us that:

The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources

as assets which it must turn over to the next generation

increased and not impaired in value.

The Bush administration is ignoring this sage advice and is turning back on the Superfund Program. This program has successfully removed PCBs, arsenic, lead, and other toxic waste from almost 900 communities. Yet this administration refuses to reauthorize the expired Superfund polluter-pays fees that were supported by President Reagan, the other President Bush, and President Clinton.

As a result, the Superfund trust fund that once contained $3.6 billion is now essentially bankrupt. The taxpayers are forced to pay for the cleanup of abandoned toxic dumps, instead of the waste- generating chemical and petroleum industries.

The impact of the resulting funding shortfall is illustrated by two sites in Vermont. The Elizabeth Mine site in Strafford has been denied funds for the second year in a row to clean up acid mine drainage that is leaching into the Connecticut River which flows down to several States. The delay has forced EPA to spend millions of dollars in emergency funds to stabilize this site, while still failing to pay for actual cleanup.

Only a few miles away lies another abandoned Superfund site, the Ely Mine site. It was added to the National Priorities List in 2001, but the Bush administration has yet to fund the investigation to discover the full extent of the contamination, let alone begin cleanup.

These examples illustrate how the Bush administration's refusal to support reauthorization of the polluter-pays fees chokes off funds for sites at all stages in the cleanup process.

Not surprisingly, the pace of cleanups completed annually during the Bush administration has plummeted by more than 50 percent. I, therefore, support the effort to reinstate the Superfund fees because every community deserves clean soil and water without delay.

I urge my colleagues to support the Lautenberg amendment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise before you today as a cosponsor of the Crapo amendment to increase the funds available for the clean water and the drinking water State revolving funds.

I ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement for the Crapo amendment from the League of Conservation Voters, the League of Cities, various environmental organizations, labor, water and wastewater infrastructure groups be printed in the Record.

In the clean water arena, the budget before us today fails to recognize the staggering water resource needs of this Nation.

A recent poll by Frank Luntz, a well-known Republican pollster, documents the widespread support among Americans for Federal investments in clean water protections.

The poll showed that 91 percent of Americans are concerned that our waterways will not be clean for our children and grandchildren.

It showed that 91 percent of Americans agree that if we are willing to invest billions of dollars annually in highways and airways, we should be willing to make the necessary investments in our Nation's waterways.

It showed that 90 percent of Americans believe that a Federal investment to guarantee clean water is a critical component of our Nation's environmental well-being.

The Water Infrastructure Network in 2000 estimated $380 billion dollars are needed for clean water and drinking water over 20 years.

The EPA in 2002 estimated $270 billion are needed for clean water and $265 billion are needed for drinking water.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated a range of $132 and $388 billion are needed for clean water and $70 and $362 billion are needed for drinking water.

In light of these statistics, the administration responded with a 37- percent cut in the fiscal year 2005 budget.

This is truly astonishing.

In the last 5 years, an extremely broad consensus has emerged that more money is needed for water infrastructure.

Time after time Americans express their outrage at the weakening of clean and safe water protections and express their willingness to pay to maintain water quality standards.

However, time after time, these strong statements fall on deaf ears in this administration.

The administration seems to recognize the need for water infrastructure in Iraq, but fails to recognize it here at home.

The administration seeks close to $3.5 billion for water and sewer services repair in Iraq, at the same time that it seeks a $500 million cut, close to a 40 percent reduction for clean water infrastructure spending, at home.

The administration seeks $775 million for water resources improvements in Iraq, and a 5 percent cut for the Army Corps of Engineers at home.

It is the Army Corps of Engineers that is executing many of the public works improvements in Iraq using expertise built at home.

The administration's cut was accompanied by a lengthy discussion of how that cut was actually an increase due to outyear assumptions about spending.

My only reaction to these types of statements is that Americans can't get cleaner water with outyear assumptions.

The District of Columbia can't get lead-free pipes today with budget gimmicks and future promises.

The residents of Washington and our entire Nation need clean and safe water now.

Some say that the reductions proposed by the administration are only part of the budget game--that the administration really hopes that Congress will reinstate previous funding levels.

Perhaps this would be believable if these were isolated instances where this administration completely failed to support clean and safe water programs.

But this is not an isolated instance.

This reduction was proposed against the backdrop of systematic actions to weaken, rollback, and fail to enforce clean and safe water protections.

The fiscal year 2005 budget is not the proposal of an administration that has made clean water a priority.

It is the proposal of an administration that from day one until the present has systematically turned its back on the 90 percent of Americans who are concerned about water quality.

I can only hope that those Americans are paying attention to today's debate.

In 2004, I joined my colleagues, Senators Crapo and Sarbanes in offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution that is similar to the amendment we offer today.

It was accepted without controversy by the full Senate, but later dropped in conference with the House.

It is time that we all start listening to the Americans who tell us over and over again that clean water is important to them. It is time to send a strong statement to the House of Representatives and the President that we will not stand by while water quality needs are shortchanged.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Crapo amendment.

I fully agree with the chairman. The Senator's amendment should have been included in the managers' amendment, and I will work with you and the chairman to resolve this matter as the process moves forward.

I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Nickles for their continued efforts on this issue. I, too, want to lend my commitment and support to fully paying for the SAFETEA bill before the Senate completes action on the legislation.

The Senior Senator from Washington State is correct. It was our understanding that the bill envisions $120 million per year for that program.

Mr. President, I have spoken many times about my serious concern for our Nation's deteriorating air quality. I would like to speak today on behalf of those Americans who are working tirelessly at the regional and local levels to protect our air quality, and who have expressed their concerns to me. Many Americans across the country feel that the Clean Air Act has not done enough to protect their health and their environment. They also worry that, under the leadership of our President, things will only get worse. They are taking action at the local and State levels, and State government is responding with real leadership. We need to support these actions with strong, Federal legislation to protect our current laws and improve our air quality.

On a nationwide Clean Air Listening Tour I initiated in 2003, I heard first-hand from Americans who are tired of getting sick from breathing dirty air, and tired of putting their children's health at risk from eating mercury-contaminated fish. In Asheville, NC, and in Boston, MA, the public demands that the Federal Government work immediately to clean their air.

Asheville is situated in close proximity to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most visited National Park in the Nation at nine million visitors every year. Sadly, this majestic park is also the Nation's most polluted, as reported by the National Parks Conservation Association. Its visibility is tied for the worst with Mammoth Cave National Park, at a mere 14-mile range during the summer months. Under natural conditions, the vista should average around 80-miles.

The Smokies have the highest rate of acid precipitation among the parks, at thirty-five kilograms per hectare. This is six to seven times the nitrogen pollution that local soils can process. In fact, the highest peak in the Smokies can be as acidic as vinegar.

The total number of hourly ozone exceedences in the Smoky Mountains far outnumbers other parks at over one hundred and thirty-three thousand per year. Ozone exposure in the Smokies is twice that of the region's most ozone-ridden cities--Knoxville, TN, and Atlanta, GA.

These statistics mean that in the Smoky Mountains, dozens of tree and plant species are damaged, streams are dying, aquatic wildlife populations are declining, and area residents face increased mortality and chronic lung ailments. Plus, the fish that people consume are poisoned with toxic mercury, which can cause a number of birth defects and health problems in adults.

What is causing all this dreaded pollution? While cars and industry contribute substantially to the problem, old, dirty power plants are my greatest concern. About 30,000 premature deaths occur every year due to power plant pollution alone. Incredibly, North Carolina loses 1,800 people each year because of this pollution. And, hundreds of thousands of children are born annually at risk of birth defects and neurological damage from their mothers' exposure to mercury.

These are shocking figures, and we should be responding immediately to this crisis. Power plants are still the Nation's single largest source of air pollution in this country. They are responsible for most of our Nation's smog and haze pollution, and asthma- and lung disease- causing particulate matter, by emitting 60 percent or more of national sulfur dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of nitrogen oxides. In fact, the country's oldest and dirtiest plants are responsible for 75 to 85 percent of the haze in the southwestern Appalachians. Power plants also emit more than one-third of the Nation's poisonous mercury into the air.

We should also know that power plants emit 25 percent of our country's emissions of carbon dioxid--the greatest greenhouse gas. Our Nation's utilities alone send forth 10 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. They are, in part, responsible for the global warming that is occurring today and will continue into the future. Global warming will seriously affect the 130 species of trees and the 4,000 other plant species in the Smokies, as well as worsen the already dangerously unhealthy ozone pollution problem. Many local residents are not only highly concerned, but they are frustrated with our Federal Government's absent leadership.

State officials and others in Asheville and the Smoky Mountain region are tired of waiting on the Federal Government to protect their air and their climate. They are already acting to reduce this power plant pollution. The North Carolina legislature has made great strides with the passage of the Clean Smokestacks Act. Other States are quickly following suit. However, States are keenly aware that since much of the pollution they experience blows in from elsewhere, a national solution is crucial. In my listening session at the Grove Park Inn on May 19, 2003, I heard witnesses testify in compelling language how air pollution affects Smoky Mountain communities, and how citizens are banding together to protect public health.

North Carolina State Senator Steven Metcalf, Buncombe County Commissioner and Chair of the Land of Sky Regional Council David Gantt, as well as John Stanton, Vice President of the National Environmental Trust, joined me in a press conference to launch the listening session. Hugh Morton, Owner of Grandfather Mountain, which is a scenic travel attraction near Linville, NC, began the public forum with a slide show illustrating the devastation that air pollution has on his business. Slide after slide showed trees made bare by acid rain, and vistas clogged with haze. There is no doubt in his mind that such pollution threatens the environmental health and economic productivity of the mountain.

Don Barger, Senior Director of the Southeast Regional Office of the National Parks Conservation Association, Brownie Newman, Executive Coordinator of the Western North Carolina Alliance, Elizabeth Ouzts, State Director of the North Carolina Public Interest Research Group, and Michael Shore, Managing Director of the local Environmental Defense, added to the dialogue by describing how grassroots action has led to a high level of public awareness about air pollution and its effects, and how that action has resulted in State legislation to begin cleaning the air.

Dr. Clay Ballantine, an Asheville physician and medical expert on power plant-related health damage, also provided excellent testimony. Given that air pollution decreases lung function, causes pneumonia and respiratory infection, increases lung cancer rates similar to those of second-hand smoke exposure, causes asthma and asthma attacks, and leads to premature death, Dr. Ballantine is concerned about the suffering he sees first-hand. I am grateful to all of these witnesses for participating in the listening session, and for sharing their expertise with me.

Since Asheville ranks sixth in the Nation in per capita deaths caused by power plant pollution, and since North Carolina is facing millions of dollars in additional pollution-related health costs, local citizens there have every reason to be concerned, and every right to be outraged that this administration plans to do nothing to help them. The administration has worked to effectively neutralize and eviscerate nearly all major protections in the Clean Air Act. From dropping all enforcement cases against the worst violators of New Source Review, to the recent proposal to delist utilities for mandatory mercury control, this administration should make all of us angry. These actions are an insult to all Americans, and a slap in the face. From Asheville, NC to Boston, MA, Americans made clear to me their desperation and frustration at being told they have to wait a decade or more for this administration and this Congress to clean their air, while the hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and birth defects continue across the country.

Residents of Boston, MA are especially worried about the potential dangers of mercury pollution from power plants, as the Boston economy, which is highly reliant on commercial and recreational fishing and tourism, may become affected by declining consumer confidence in the safety of local fish. Fortunately for some New England residents, states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut are already moving ahead with emission reduction plans.

I sincerely appreciate the participation and support of my distinguished colleagues Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressmen Mike Capuano, Jim McGovern, and Bill Delahunt, and Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly in standing with me on September 22, 2003, at the New England Aquarium to bring attention to the serious mercury pollution problem facing New England. Also lending their support during the press conference were Ed Toomey, Aquarium President and CEO, and Armond Cohen, Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force in Boston. The Aquarium and Task Force have been leaders in mercury and air pollution-related research, education, and advocacy.

At the public forum, Cindy Luppi, Organizing Director of Clean Water Action in Boston, and Jane Bright of HealthLink in Marblehead, Massachusetts spoke about the grassroots Northeast Clean Power Campaign, representing over 300 organizations from Maine to Connecticut that are all fighting to reduce power plant pollution in the region.

Ms. Luppi also provided compelling findings from a Tufts University study: direct costs of environmentally-attributable neurobehavioral disorders, such as those caused by mercury pollution, in Massachusetts alone total between $40 million and $150 million each year, with indirect costs totaling an additional $100 million to $400 million. Also, Ms. Luppi presented the findings of a 2002 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection study which determined, ``The Department believes that the removal of 85 to 90-plus percent of mercury in flue gas has been demonstrated to be technologically and economically feasible.'' In other words, there is no excuse to delay mandating tough national mercury reductions under the Clean Air Act.

Massachusetts and Connecticut are moving now to require an 85 to 95 percent reduction in mercury emissions in the next 5 to 9 years. Like in Asheville, the witnesses stressed that such State-level progress is encouraging, but that real relief from air pollution can only come from reductions made across the country.

During the listening session, Dr. Jill Stein, a physician and President of the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities, and Dr. Bill Bress, State Toxicologist for the Vermont Department of Health, detailed the serious and often life-threatening health effects of mercury exposure through consumption of contaminated fish. Nearly 10 percent of American women have high mercury blood levels above EPA's safe health threshold. Pregnant women who consume even small amounts of fish can inadvertently put their developing babies at risk of mental retardation, seizures, cerebral palsy, vision and hearing problems, abnormal gait and speech, and learning disabilities. EPA has estimated that 630,000 children are born at risk each year due to mercury exposure in the womb. This is twice EPA's previous estimate.

An astonishing 50 percent of Americans who eat fish regularly exceed the mercury health limit, and 10 percent exceed the limit by a factor of four. Adults are also susceptible to developing heart, kidney, and immune system disorders due to mercury consumption. Anglers and certain ethnic groups who eat large amounts of fish face two to five times these health risks. Clearly, dramatically curbing mercury pollution will improve all of our lives.

Dr. Steve Petron, Board Member of the National Wildlife Federation and Senior Ecosystems Scientist for CH2M Hill, demonstrated how toxic mercury pollution from power plants harms our Nation's aquatic wildlife. Those species that depend on fish for food are the most at risk. Because of this, loons, bald eagles, otters, amphibians, and other animals are already facing or could soon face decline. And lastly, Dr. Praveen Amar, Director of Science and Policy for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM, represented State air quality regulators by stressing that mercury control technologies are available and affordable, and by expressing the need for smart Federal environmental laws to drive technology innovation and application. As a recent NESCAUM report found, ``Where strong regulatory drivers exist, substantial technological improvements and steady reductions in control costs follow.''

That's where Congress comes in. We are elected to serve the people of this Nation. Where people are becoming sick and are dying because of air pollution, something must be done. We must never knowingly allow such suffering to continue if we have the ability to act, and we do. Time and time again, mothers and fathers, doctors, scientists, and community members ask for our help.

At the bare minimum, we should be protecting current law. But to truly benefit the public good, we must pass tough legislation to force dirty power plants and other polluters to start behaving like good citizens. The air is not their toxic waste dump. It is not theirs to pollute for free, even though this administration is encouraging them to think that way. If it belongs to anyone, the air belongs to those children who play outdoors, or those families who go fishing and take trips to our scenic national parks, or to the poorest of us who are unlucky enough to live next to a smokestack. The air belongs to all of us. We should treat it like the most precious resource we know. Americans from around the country have learned this important lesson. Congress and this administration must now do the same.