Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have listened closely to the debate over providing prescription drugs and improving other benefits under the Medicare Program. This debate has not been limited to the last few days, as we all well know. This debate has been waged for 38 years.

Providing Americans with access to prescription drugs at an affordable cost has been one of the most vexing issues facing Congress in recent years. Many ``solutions'' have been offered to ``fix'' the problems of high cost and lack of access, and Congress has explored and debated various approaches. Of these approaches, providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit is the most important and perhaps the most challenging to accomplish.

For years, progress has been delayed over significant policy differences, not the least of which was the question of whether or not the Government could even afford to create a new and expensive entitlement program. But that question shifted and our debate this week wasn't focused on the question of whether the Government should provide a prescription drug benefit but rather on the details of how to structure a prescription drug benefit.

Last Congress I had the privilege to work with several of my Republican and Democratic colleagues in the Senate to develop a Medicare drug benefit program that became a key option in the ``how to'' debate. Our proposal, which became known as the tripartisan effort, embodied the principles that I believed must be part of a Medicare drug program.

First, the program must make a universal benefit available to all Medicare beneficiaries. It would be unfair to use much needed medicines as a carrot to lure seniors into managed care programs they don't want. We should also avoid providing a benefit only to the poorest of the poor and those with catastrophic costs. Virtually all seniors, regardless of income, need help to make their medicines either outright available or more affordable, and most have indicated a willingness to pay their fair share to support the program.

Second, the program must be comprehensive so that elders would have as generous a benefit as possible, from their initial spending to their catastrophic costs, and they shouldn't have to forego the best medicines for the cheapest ones just in the name of budget savings.

Third, a Medicare drug benefit must be affordable for both beneficiaries and the Government. Seniors should be able to get the best medicine available at the best possible price and the Government must derive the best cost savings through open competition. We should expect to realize as much savings in our pharmaceutical purchase for Medicare as foreign governments realize today.

Finally, for a drug benefit to be truly successful it must be sustainable. It will do little good to repeat the catastrophic failure of years past by beginning a program that we cannot carry on. That is why this must be a shared responsibility of beneficiaries and the Government. A program that combines seniors' contributions with a Government guarantee will have the best chance of enduring into the future.

Since last year, I have listened to the concerns of my colleagues, and I have weighed those concerns seriously. In the last few days of debate, I have given great consideration to the points raised by my colleagues and good friends in this body. I acknowledge their sentiments and I agree that this is not the bill I would have written if I had infinite resources to do it. This bill is not perfect. However, 38 years is just too long for American seniors to wait.

Turning this legislation away would have been a missed opportunity to provide seniors with the most significant modernization of their Medicare benefits since the program's inception in 1965. I believe this bill meets these four standards: It is universal, comprehensive, affordable, and sustainable. Could it be improved? Certainly. But this plan is a good compromise. It offers a respectable and responsible plan within the budget limitations we faced. It is a good compromise. I support this bill.

The conference report includes many significant features for the citizens of my home State of Vermont. It provides a sustainable, universal, and comprehensive prescription drug benefit to all 93,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Vermont.

For 40,000 seniors in Vermont with limited savings and incomes below $13,470 for individuals and $18,180 for couples, the Federal Government will cover most of their drug costs.

In addition, Medicare, instead of Medicaid, will now assume the prescription drug costs of 21,767 Vermont beneficiaries who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this will save Vermont $76 million over 8 years on prescription drug coverage for its Medicaid population.

This bill recognizes the high cost of providing quality care in rural settings and finally puts an end to years of unfair reimbursement gaps between rural providers and their urban counterparts. Specifically, this Medicare package provides $25 billion for rural providers, netting $41 million in additional funds for Vermont hospitals over the next 10 years and $18 million for underreimbursed physicians over the next 2 years.

I am also glad Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus have worked with me to address another inequity in the system. Critical access hospitals provide care in the some most underserved regions of Vermont as is the case throughout rural America. These hospitals are small yet serve

as critical resources to their communities.

I am very pleased to see that the conferees retained a provision from the Senate measure that will allow critical access hospitals, like the Mount Ascutney Hospital in Windsor, VT, to expand access to psychiatric and rehabilitative services to the most vulnerable citizens in that community.

This bill contains a provision that will allow us to better understand how to provide quality health care, culminating several years of work in concert with Dr. Jack Wennberg at Dartmouth to measure care by the quality of patient outcomes rather than utilization of resources.

In closing, I especially want to salute the efforts of Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, and Senator Breaux and the other without whose hard work and commitment to working through an agreement we would not have accomplished passage of this legislation and they deserve our accolades. I also thank several of my other colleagues who have contributed so much to this debate over the years. I have worked for more than 3 years with my good friends, Chairman Grassley and Senators Snowe, Breaux and Hatch. In many meetings over many months, we delved into the details of what came to be called the tripartisan bill. This has been one of the finest experiences of my many years in Congress. I am very proud to have been a part of that group and that our efforts led the way to our success today.

A bill such as this is the result of great effort on the part of many different people who are not elected to this body but upon whom we all rely. I would like to recognize the staff members who have worked so hard on this bill and deserve much of the credit for its successful passage.

On Senator Grassley's staff: Ted Tottman, Linda Fishman, Colin Roskey, Mark Hayes, Jennifer Bell, and Leah Kegler, and on Senator Baucus' staff Jeff Forbes, Liz Fowler, Jon Blum, Pat Bousliman, Kate Kirschgraber, and Andrea Cohen deserve considerable recognition for their tireless efforts. Catherine Finley, Tom Geier, and Carolyn Holmes from my friend Senator Snowe's staff; Patricia DeLoatche and Patricia Knight of Senator Hatch's office; and most especially Senator Breaux's legislative director Sarah Walters and his staff Michelle Easton and Paige Jennings deserve enormous credit for this bill.

On my own staff, I particularly want to recognize the contributions of Sherry Kaiman, Eric Silva, and especially Sean Donohue who took up the effort on the tripartisan bill and who has continued to see it through to today's success. Each and all have worked tirelessly to gather the input, analyze the issues, and build a consensus toward achieving this final product.

Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues and the American public some serious questions today--questions about air pollution and its impacts closer to home.

Many of us listening today have children and grandchildren. How many of them have asthma? How many of us have taken children to the emergency room in the middle of the night, desperate to put a stop to their terrifying asthma attacks?

How many of the Nation's growing number of asthmatic children have to carry inhalers to school, and wish they could run, play, and breathe freely like the other kids?

How many Americans know young children who depend on their asthma inhalers to get safely through a simple game of baseball? Their asthma attacks could be some of the six hundred thousand caused by air pollution every year.

How many of our own children or grandchildren yearn to play outdoors during school recess, only to have their teachers warn them the air is too unhealthy?

How many of us have parents or siblings with emphysema? Or chronic lung disease? Reduced lung function, or lung cancer? Air pollution decreases lung function and causes asthma and asthma attacks, lung disease, emphysema, lung cancer, and heart problems.

Do Americans ever worry that their own lives may be shortened by three or four years, just because the air is so dirty?

Sixty thousand people die prematurely in this country every year because of air pollution. It's hard to believe, isn't it? Let me put it another way.

Air pollution is responsible for more deaths than breast cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, skin cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer, lymphoma, or leukemia.

Half of the deaths caused by air pollution are due to power plants alone. In

fact, power plant-related deaths are so numerous that they far outnumber drunk driving fatalities in all but one of the 15 dirtiest States.

Have Americans ever wondered how close they live to a powerplant? A Harvard University study showed that those who live near powerplants, who are often the poorer, less educated, uninsured, or minority populations, tend to be the most affected by pollution. Fortunately for some of us here, we are probably less vulnerable. We live further away, we live more comfortably, and we have access to quality health care.

But does that sound like a fair and equitable distribution of the impacts of pollution? Hardly.

Americans can experience pollution very differently. Although 58 percent of white Americans live in counties violating Federal air pollution standards--an unacceptably high percentage--71 percent of African Americans do. Even worse, twice as many African Americans die from pollution than whites. Does that sound like a fair allocation of the impacts?

If these appeals do not strike a chord, perhaps the economic impact of all these health problems will.

I have mentioned before that over 30,000 premature deaths can be blamed on powerplant pollution every year. An EPA consulting firm using EPA methodology estimated that this loss of life hurts the U.S. economy by $170 billion each year. I ask unanimous consent that a table from this firm's recent report be printed in the Record.

When you add in the economic impact of the tens of thousands of cases of asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, heart problems, and lost work days, you reach a pretty staggering conclusion.

Powerplant pollution alone is responsible for $178 billion in damage to our health and our economy each year, burdening our already taxed Medicare program and draining American productivity.

There are even more ways in which air pollution hurts our way of life.

How many Americans seek peace and enjoyment in our national parks, only to find the vistas clogged with haze? Do families go hiking in our national forests, only to reach bald stands of trees that have been killed by acid rain?

I know many people from my State of Vermont and other States are avid skiers. Do they wonder why ski resorts must make their own snow more now than ever before, and why the ski season continues to come later each year? Global warming will threaten more than ski vacations in the very near future. Global warming and rising sea levels could mean life and death to those in our society who live on the margins.

Do those listening today enjoy fishing trips with their families? Do their husbands and wives, daughters and sons, and grandchildren eat the fish that are caught?

I am sorry to say that the fish being caught may contain unhealthy levels of mercury, likely due to dirty powerplants. Coal-fired powerplants emit mercury emissions. Mercury contaminates rainwater. It settles in waterways. It poisons fish. The contaminated fish create a health risk.

Powerplants are responsible for one-third of all U.S. mercury emissions. Amazingly, they are currently unregulated.

Are doctors warning pregnant women not to eat fish because mercury endangers fetuses? I hope they do, because one in 12 women in this country--that is 5 million women--have blood levels of mercury above EPA's safe health threshold. That means that over 300,000 newborns each year face increased risk of nervous system damage due to mercury exposure in the womb.

How many Americans have children or grandchildren with learning disabilities, speech problems, attention disorders, loss of muscle coordination, memory problems, poor visual spatial skills, vision problems, hearing loss, seizures, mental retardation, or cerebral palsy? Have they ever wondered whether these disorders could be due to mercury exposure?

We all saw what happened when a teen spilled less than a cup of mercury at Ballou High School in Southeast Washington. The metal is so toxic to humans that officials closed the school for over a month and evacuated 17 nearby homes.

Do we feel comfortable knowing that U.S. powerplants emit 50 tons of toxic mercury into the air every year, so that it may fall in our backyards, in our grandchildren's sandboxes, and in the lakes where we fish?

How many Americans depend on fishing in tainted waters for their livelihood? Chances are, they live in one of the 44 States in the Nation with fish advisories for mercury and other toxic pollutants. Chances are also likely that they are unaware that eating fish poisoned by mercury can damage their nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidneys, and immune system.

Sadly, some ethnic groups and anglers who rely on high amounts of fish in their diets face two to five times the health risk. Unfortunately, these Americans may lack health insurance and access to proper medical care to deal with these problems.

I have made an appeal today to my distinguished colleagues and to my fellow Americans. I know my colleagues are compassionate and they do everything possible to represent their constituents, their States, and the Nation well. I only hope they are moved by some of what I have said today to take swift and serious action to protect our air quality.

Unfortunately, this administration's recent and upcoming actions to dismantle our clean air laws mean we all have to be vigilant. I will fight to protect those 60,000 lives and those 300,000 newborns. I will fight to bring down the $178 billion in costs to human health and to our precious environment. But Americans will need all of my colleagues' help, too.

Senators should send a message to the President and EPA Administrator Leavitt right now. It needs to be loud, and it needs to be clear.

The Clean Air Act says utility emissions of air toxics, especially mercury, have to come down drastically. EPA is already years behind in regulating. There should be no further delay.

In the coming weeks, EPA is likely to propose a rule on mercury that is not legal or sanctioned by the Clean Air Act. Senators should tell Administrator Leavitt and the President that these ongoing assaults on air quality have to stop.

I call on the President to do the right thing for once on clean air-- cut toxic air emissions from powerplants. Do it right. Do it as the law requires. And do it now.

Mr. President, I have raised concerns about the troubling environmental provisions contained in the energy bill conference report several times during the course of debate on the measure, but I also wanted to share my concerns regarding the energy provisions of the bill. Energy policy is an important issue for America and one which my Vermont constituents take very seriously. The bill before us seeks to address important issues, such as the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the tradeoffs between the need for energy and the need to protect the quality of our environment, and the need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the importance of energy policy, this bill is a very serious matter and I do not take a decision to oppose such a bill lightly. In my view, this conference report does not achieve the correct balance on several important energy issues, as well as on a number of environmental issues.

In my work on this legislation, I have heard from large numbers of my constituents. They generally regard the bill as legislation written by a handful of people with the purpose of rolling back environmental protections and providing big corporations with giveaways at the expense of average Americans. Wally Elton from Springfield, VT called my office last Tuesday to voice his many concerns about the bill. Mr. Elton is skeptical about many facets of this legislation. ``It makes energy the top priority for public lands, it relaxes clean air and clean water standards, which will have bad effects on public health. There is nothing for conservation--it is all about giving companies subsidies and granting them everything on their 'wish list'. In a time of deficit, we should not be doing this.''

In short, Mr. Elton has deep concern regarding all aspects of this bill, right down to the way it was produced. ``The bill is not a reconciliation of two bills, and was not the product of bipartisan effort,'' he said. ``They just started over.''

Many people echo Mr. Elton's concern about this bill being written behind closed doors, in ``secret.'' My constituents tell me that a bill written without the valid contributions of a wide range of people will not reflect the feelings of the majority of Americans. It is widely known as ``Cheney's bill.''

Carol Groom of Warren said ``They are rolling back our environmental protections and cleanup of MBTE will be put on the taxpayers.'' Mary Lou Treat of Putney, VT is worried about respiratory diseases caused from pollutants from coal-burning factories, while Catherine Audetter, also of Putney, said ``wary of this legislation's unusual support of oil'' and lack of focus on renewables. Susanna Liepmann of South Strafford is concerned about wildlife protection.

An energy expert in my State likened this bill to a horror movie: ``My strong recommendation is to oppose this bill in any way you can. This bill should have been released on Halloween--it's a Frankenstein monster of mismatched body parts, most of them bad in and of themselves, and even worse when patched together.''

For example, in the electricity title, it strengthens the hand of FERC by permitting mandatory reliability standards, which is fine, but not as big an improvement as some claim. But it weakens the hand of FERC to require transmission companies to join RTOs, and blocks FERC's hand on moving to better market structures. In New England, this means that transmission

companies now rule the roost, and can essentially dictate terms to the ISO--because their participation in the regional pool is voluntary. These are the regional monopolists--why is our ability to regulate them on a regional basis made subject to their voluntary agreement?

For another example, this bill is deferring to States by holding back FERC from mandating regional markets; but it harms States by repealing PUHCA without any meaningful replacement. Two years after the Enron disaster, and associated revelations and bankruptcies of many other major players, why are we are repealing PUHCA without any serious look at what would be needed instead?

Of course, at a more fundamental level, a bill that gives enormous benefits to fossil extraction industries and does not improve CAFE standards is an embarrassment. The failure is mirrored on the electricity side, where it gives incentives for supply side electricity production and delivery with merely face-saving measures to advance efficiency and renewables. The list could go on.

My recommendation to the Senate is to put the Frankenstein bill out of its misery. Stop it any way you can. A filibuster is in order--and it should be about a lot more than MBTE.

These examples serve to express my constituents' frustration with this legislation. And their concern is reflected by communication that I have had with other energy sector experts as well. Ralph Nader, long regarded as an expert in vehicle fuel economy, is deeply concerned that this bill does nothing to increase the average fuel efficiency of our passenger cars, which is the worst in 20 years.

Steven M. Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said in the New York Times on November 21, 2003, that the vehicle and energy efficiency provisions of the current energy bill ``are only a Band-Aid.'' The 3-month investigation released by a joint U.S.-Canada government task force on the blackout documents a significant and overriding reason for the cascading outage that knocked out electricity from New York to Toronto to Detroit: No one was in charge of the sprawling, heavily loaded and trouble-prone part of the transmission grid running around Lake Erie. The portion of the midwestern grid centered in Ohio has long worried industry regulators, and the energy bill does create operating rules to lessen the risk of blackouts. But this conference report could do much more for reliability such as establishing uniform net metering requirements, promoting the upgrade of existing infrastructure rather than creating a frenzy over the construction of new lines, and investing in the deployment of new transmission technologies.

Finally, I have heard from Norman Milleron, former member of Berkeley's Energy Commission in the 1970s, that the country could be doing much more to capture natural gas that is lost or inefficiently combusted at centrally located powerplants, promote the use of distributed generation, and advance research to promote energy efficiency and more effectively generate electricity from biomass.

This bill should have contained a renewable portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to generate or purchase a percentage of the electricity they sell from renewable sources. Fifty-three Senators support such a requirement, more than a majority of this body. We can and should do better on renewable energy sources. This bill should have set a serious target, we should have had a floor debate on this issue, and it should have been in the conference report.

In addition, this bill repeals the pro-consumer Public Utility Holding Company Act, among the Federal Government's most important mechanisms to protect electricity consumers. The conference report fails to protect electricity consumers, investors, and small businesses from abusive transactions between utilities and affiliate companies within the same corporate family. It also failed to include an amendment that I cosponsored, offered by the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill, which banned all of the Enron-like trading schemes. The Cantwell amendment passed with the support of 57 Senators, and should have been added to this bill.

As I have said before, the American people deserve better than this bill, and I cannot vote in favor of it as currently drafted. Both the environmental and the energy provisions of this measure will need to be greatly improved when we return next year to get my vote.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Paul Wallace-Brodeur, an outstanding Vermonter and a national leader in the area of health care reform. As he prepares to retire from his position as director of the Office of Vermont Health Access in Waterbury, VT, it is important to reflect on how much one person can accomplish in serving others.

Paul has been on the forefront of providing individuals with greater access to the health care delivery system. As the State Medicaid director, which is

Vermont's second largest insurance program, Paul helped Vermont obtain the distinction of having one of the lowest uninsured rates in the country. Under Paul's leadership, Vermont broadened its eligibility standards and was one of the first States in the country to expand Medicaid services to children under the Dr. Dynasaur program. During his tenure, Medicaid programs grew to cover 143,313 Vermonters.

Paul began his career in Vermont as a social worker at the Brandon Training School. He quickly rose to leadership positions as a direct provider and then consultant in the field of mental health, followed by his position as the chief social worker for the Vermont State Hospital. It came as no surprise to those of us who know Paul that he was selected in the mid-1980s to lead the State of Vermont's efforts in creating universal access to health care as the executive director of the Vermont Health Policy Council and through his work for the Vermont Health Care Authority. Also during the mid-1980s he spearheaded the creation of the Vermont Ethics Network, an organization dedicated to increasing the understanding of ethical issues, values, and choices in health and health care.

Over the course of 40 years, Paul has been involved with virtually every health policy initiative in Vermont, particularly the State's efforts to expand health coverage. He is personally responsible for authoring Vermont's 1115 waiver, which over the years, and with many amendments, has provided more expansive and flexible Medicaid services to Vermonters. In his quiet unassuming way, Paul is an integral part of the health care delivery system in Vermont and has gained recognition for being a national health policy leader and mentor. He has always brought a steadfast commitment and institutional knowledge to solving the problem at hand while maintaining a vision for improving Vermont's health care system.

Paul's unwavering commitment toward improving the health status of every Vermont citizen is a great lesson for all public servants. Vermont is truly indebted to him. His deep commitment to the citizens of the Green Mountain State has endeared him to us. He has our best wishes for the future.

Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to Vermont Associates for Training and Development as it celebrates 20 years of service in meeting the employment needs of Vermonters, age 55 and older, who are ready, willing, and able to work.

I also acknowledge the organization's founding executive director, Pat Elmer, for her vision, leadership, and management skills as she has guided the organization during the past two decades. The agency has developed a number of programs related to career counseling, job search, and computer training in order to prepare individuals for the work place. In addition, they provide on-the-job training stipends to allow people the opportunity to build their resumes through real-life work experiences.

Too often employers may overlook this valuable, and often untapped, resource, which older workers have to offer the workplace. I commend Vermont Associates for leading the way in changing the mindset of many companies by creating new opportunities for employees and employers alike.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, which has jurisdiction over the Older Americans Act, I commend Vermont Associates for their wise and prudent use of funding from this act. Vermont Associates, and their colleagues across the country, were very helpful to me as I chaired the HELP Committee during the long-awaited reauthorization of this legislation.

I have a strong admiration for Pat's dedication and the many others, including board members and volunteers, who have built Vermont Associates. Vermont is grateful to Vermont Associates for their steadfast commitment to equal access to employment. Collectively, they have greatly improved the quality of life in our small State. For that, Vermont owes a great deal of gratitude.

Mr. President, I have frequently reiterated my conviction that investment in transportation is a means to an end. Our national transportation policy must be designed to serve the public good. In my view, the outcomes we seek are a strong economy, safe and healthy communities, and a clean environment. A balanced transportation system, including a strong freight and passenger rail system, is necessary for us to attain these goals.

As ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have been highly involved in the Senate's effort to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation program. Over the past two years, I have traveled around the country, visiting local examples of national transportation challenges. I have heard critiques and suggestions from dozens of transportation officials, users, and advocates.

In order to best serve the needs of this country, we must redouble our investment in an efficient, intermodal transportation system. I have often expressed my view that the success of our surface transportation program rests on four fundamental `pillars':

First, asset management. We must maintain and preserve existing infrastructure. Second, we must enhance access and mobility, particularly for Americans living in our most congested urban areas.

The third pillar is freight and trade. We need new and improved facilities to accommodate the quantity of goods moving through our system.

Fourth, I believe that rail is the final component of a successful surface transportation system. We are not currently meeting the nation's freight and passenger rail needs. We must invest in a modern national rail system, comparable to our highway and aviation systems. The bill that we are introducing today will help us achieve that goal.

The American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement

Act of the 21st Century (ARRIVE 21) strives to provide sustainable, meaningful, and continuous funding opportunities for states that want to improve and expand their rail systems. Currently, the federal government provides few funding sources to assist states in their efforts to maintain and improve freight and passenger rail service. This bill creates a nonprofit, public-private partnership--the Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation (RIFCO)--with the authority to issue $30 billion in tax-credit bonds over six years. With the resulting revenue, RIFCO will award capital grants to states and to Amtrak.

My State of Vermont has long displayed a commitment to maintaining an effective and efficient freight and passenger rail system. This legislation would provide Vermont a significant new source of revenue to fund capital projects such as rail line rehabilitation, safety and security projects, and development of intermodal facilities. In fact, grants awarded by RIFCO could be used to reimburse States for the capital investments they've already made, a provision that is particularly helpful to States, like Vermont, that have invested State money into eligible projects.

For Amtrak, this legislation introduces financial and policy commitments to dramatically improve passenger rail service in this country. We envision a future that includes a healthy and efficient passenger rail system and provide the resources to move Amtrak in that direction.

ARRIVE 21 authorizes approximately $1.5 billion per year, for six years, for capital and operating expenses. We have under-funded Amtrak for too long. This funding level will provide Amtrak the resources it needs to address urgent infrastructure needs and system-wide service improvements.

Amtrak will also benefit from provisions in this bill that encourage long-term sustainability and enhanced operations. ARRIVE 21 requires improved accounting procedures and oversight. Additionally, states that currently share responsibility with Amtrak for supporting services through or within their states will see changes to equalize their cost burden. This bill requires that Amtrak, in collaboration with the Department of Transportation, adopt fair and uniform standards for cost sharing on short-distance services that states contract with Amtrak to provide.

ARRIVE 21 also directs an independent study to research Amtrak's current and past procedures for determining intercity passenger rail routes and services. The study will recommend changes to that process to improve the efficiency, accessibility, and effectiveness of our national rail service.

I have long been a strong advocate for rail. I firmly believe that nation-wide investment in freight and passenger rail infrastructure will invite rewards in the form of reduced congestion, improved environmental quality, and improved mobility options for our nation's travelers. ARRIVE 21 encourages States, and the Federal Government, to more fully integrate freight and passenger rail into the surface transportation system. Improved rail planning policy, at both the Federal and State levels, will enhance the efficiency and longevity of our transportation system and will promote safe, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation options.

Mr. President, I have frequently reiterated my conviction that investment in transportation is a means to an end. Our national transportation policy must be designed to serve the public good. In my view, the outcomes we seek are a strong economy, safe and healthy communities, and a clean environment. A balanced transportation system, including a strong freight and passenger rail system, is necessary for us to attain these goals.

As ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have been highly involved in the Senate's effort to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation program. Over the past two years, I have traveled around the country, visiting local examples of national transportation challenges. I have heard critiques and suggestions from dozens of transportation officials, users, and advocates.

In order to best serve the needs of this country, we must redouble our investment in an efficient, intermodal transportation system. I have often expressed my view that the success of our surface transportation program rests on four fundamental `pillars':

First, asset management. We must maintain and preserve existing infrastructure. Second, we must enhance access and mobility, particularly for Americans living in our most congested urban areas.

The third pillar is freight and trade. We need new and improved facilities to accommodate the quantity of goods moving through our system.

Fourth, I believe that rail is the final component of a successful surface transportation system. We are not currently meeting the nation's freight and passenger rail needs. We must invest in a modern national rail system, comparable to our highway and aviation systems. The bill that we are introducing today will help us achieve that goal.

The American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement

Act of the 21st Century (ARRIVE 21) strives to provide sustainable, meaningful, and continuous funding opportunities for states that want to improve and expand their rail systems. Currently, the federal government provides few funding sources to assist states in their efforts to maintain and improve freight and passenger rail service. This bill creates a nonprofit, public-private partnership--the Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation (RIFCO)--with the authority to issue $30 billion in tax-credit bonds over six years. With the resulting revenue, RIFCO will award capital grants to states and to Amtrak.

My State of Vermont has long displayed a commitment to maintaining an effective and efficient freight and passenger rail system. This legislation would provide Vermont a significant new source of revenue to fund capital projects such as rail line rehabilitation, safety and security projects, and development of intermodal facilities. In fact, grants awarded by RIFCO could be used to reimburse States for the capital investments they've already made, a provision that is particularly helpful to States, like Vermont, that have invested State money into eligible projects.

For Amtrak, this legislation introduces financial and policy commitments to dramatically improve passenger rail service in this country. We envision a future that includes a healthy and efficient passenger rail system and provide the resources to move Amtrak in that direction.

ARRIVE 21 authorizes approximately $1.5 billion per year, for six years, for capital and operating expenses. We have under-funded Amtrak for too long. This funding level will provide Amtrak the resources it needs to address urgent infrastructure needs and system-wide service improvements.

Amtrak will also benefit from provisions in this bill that encourage long-term sustainability and enhanced operations. ARRIVE 21 requires improved accounting procedures and oversight. Additionally, states that currently share responsibility with Amtrak for supporting services through or within their states will see changes to equalize their cost burden. This bill requires that Amtrak, in collaboration with the Department of Transportation, adopt fair and uniform standards for cost sharing on short-distance services that states contract with Amtrak to provide.

ARRIVE 21 also directs an independent study to research Amtrak's current and past procedures for determining intercity passenger rail routes and services. The study will recommend changes to that process to improve the efficiency, accessibility, and effectiveness of our national rail service.

I have long been a strong advocate for rail. I firmly believe that nation-wide investment in freight and passenger rail infrastructure will invite rewards in the form of reduced congestion, improved environmental quality, and improved mobility options for our nation's travelers. ARRIVE 21 encourages States, and the Federal Government, to more fully integrate freight and passenger rail into the surface transportation system. Improved rail planning policy, at both the Federal and State levels, will enhance the efficiency and longevity of our transportation system and will promote safe, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation options.

Mr. President, I have been listening closely to our colleagues and their many statements of support or opposition to the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003.

Some have said this is the culmination of the debate we began last year. But this debate is much older than just a year, or even 2 years.

The debate as to whether, and if so how, to provide prescription drugs for the elderly through the Medicare program has been with us since the very beginning of the program.

Thirty-eight years ago, when this body engaged in the historic debate on the original Medicare bill, Senator Jacob Javits from the state of New York offered an amendment to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries would have access to prescription drugs. Senator Javits was asked to modify his amendment to a study that would examine the assurance of paying for drugs, methods of avoiding unnecessary utilization of drugs and mechanisms for controlling costs.

Now, almost 40 years later, they are still debating the very same issues that were part of the 1965 Javits debate. We should enact a prescription drug benefit today. The doom and gloom scenario painted by the bill's opponents is as exaggerated as the claims that this bill will solve all seniors' needs. It is time to put aside our differences for the good of all seniors. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a very good bill.

May I have an additional 1 minute?

Forty million seniors and disabled Americans need help now. They cannot afford to wait for a perfect program because it may never come. The bill provides the foundations we need. In the final analysis, I find there are more reasons to support this bill than to oppose it. I fear that if we do not take this golden opportunity, we will have lost it forever.

We have on one hand the opportunity to provide the largest benefit improvements to Medicare in nearly 40 years, including a comprehensive and universal prescription drug benefit.

On the other hand, we can turn away from the proposal before us today, and return yet again to the drawing board in search of perfection.

I believe it is time that we begin to offer a real benefit instead of more studies, more analysis and more delay. We should enact a prescription drug benefit today.

Let's take a moment to look at some of the issues, because I think it is worth dwelling on why I think we should vote in support of this measure.

Vermont already has one of the most generous prescription drug programs for the elderly and disabled.

As part of a waiver through the Medicaid program, Vermont expanded its ``V-Script'' state pharmacy assistance program and extended subsidized coverage to individuals at 250 percent of poverty, well above the income levels that provide subsidies in this measure.

In fact, the Vermont V-Script program is so generous that some have argued that people will be worse off with a less-generous Federal benefit. I don't think that's the case.

First, in today's economy there is no guarantee that Vermont will be able to continue its current level of support for the V-Script program.

But this bill dedicates almost $400 billion to the development of a universal prescription drug program, representing the largest expansion of the Medicare program since its inception.

This bill will guarantee a comprehensive and universal drug benefit to 41 million seniors in America.

That includes all 93,000 seniors in my own home state of Vermont. And, it guarantees the same coverage to the millions of baby-boomers who will soon rely on Medicare.

For 40,000 seniors in Vermont with limited savings and incomes below $13,470 for individuals and $18,180 for couples, the Federal Government will cover most of their drug costs. In fact, nearly one-third of all seniors nationwide will receive assistance for nearly 90 percent of their drug costs.

Additionally, Medicare, instead of Medicaid, will now assume the prescription drug costs for 21,767 Vermont beneficiaries who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this will save Vermont $76 million over 8 years on prescription drug coverage for its Medicaid population.

Finally, the bill includes provisions that will allow States such as Vermont that have pharmacy assistance programs to augment, or ``wrap- around'' the Federal Medicare benefit with State resources.

In fact, there is nothing in the legislation that would preclude Vermont, should it wish, from using the savings to establish its own prescription drug plan as long as it meets the requirements of the bill.

Some of our colleagues have criticized this bill, arguing that it would lead to an increase in employers dropping or reducing prescription drug coverage for its retirees.

I have looked at the estimates put forth by the Congressional Budget Office and the employee benefit think tanks, and I am concerned with those numbers.

But again, it is important to consider this potential downside in light of what is already occurring.

The number of employers providing prescription drug benefits has already been steadily declining for years, and without this Federal guarantee those disenfranchised workers would not have any benefit at all.

In short, no senior, regardless of income, will go without prescription drug coverage in Vermont or throughout America once this legislation is enacted. That is, in part, why two of the largest national aging organizations such as AARP and the National Council of Older Americans supports this legislation.

And it why the Vermont AARP supports it as well.

Perhaps most important of all is the $25 billion for rural providers, ending years of unfair payments to rural hospitals, doctors and other providers.

This bill will ensure reliable access to health care services for seniors by better compensating health care providers.

I have already seen estimates that these rural provisions will provide Vermont hospitals with an additional $41 million over the next 10 years, and physicians will get a boost of $18 million in reimbursements over the next 2 years.

I have received many announcements from many Vermont constituents and stakeholders, including the Vermont AARP, the Fletcher Allen Health Center, the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems.

I am also glad that Chairman Grassley and ranking member Baucus have worked with me to address another inequity in the system.

Critical access hospitals provide care in some of the most underserved regions of Vermont, as is the case throughout rural America. These hospitals are small, yet serve as critical resources to their communities.

So I am pleased to see that the conferees retained a provision from the Senate measure that will allow critical access hospitals, such as Mt. Ascutney Hospital in Windsor, VT, to expand access to psychiatric and rehabilitative services to the most vulnerable citizens in that community.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the conferees for retaining another key provision from the Senate bill that will begin a major demonstration on improving quality and patient outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries.

This is the result of several years of working in concert with Dr. Jack Wennberg at Dartmouth College to bring greater attention to the regional disparities in the consumption of health resources without the improvement in health outcomes to show for it.

I acknowledge the sentiments of many of my colleagues here today. I too agree that this is not the bill I would have written if I had infinite resources to do it.

This bill is not perfect. However, after all of the time that has been spent on trying to develop a Medicare plan for prescription drugs--38 years--it would be a missed opportunity if we reject this good beginning to comprehensive coverage.

By passing this bill, we are laying the foundation. A foundation that requires constant vigilance, as has the original Medicare program.

So in closing, I would like to urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this bill as we move forward.

This bill will establish a drug benefit that is universal, comprehensive, affordable, and sustainable.

This bill restores necessary and long-needed fairness to our physicians and providers in rural areas. And, the bill will improve the quality of care offered under Medicare.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the measure.

I ask unanimous consent to have the following article printed in the Record.

Mr. President, America needs an energy policy, but not this one. This bill fails to provide a realistic, sustainable energy plan for America's future. Observers have called this Energy bill ``three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics.'' They call it a complete waste of energy and say it fails to address the fuel and power needs of the average American. They are absolutely right.

The bill includes environmental rollbacks. It threatens public health. It weakens consumer protections against electricity market manipulation. It gives out billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear industries. The rollback of three of our most fundamental environmental laws--the Clean Air Act, the Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act--is terrible environmental policy.

This bill allows more smog pollution. This bill exempts all oil and gas construction activities from the Clean Water Act. The Senate's renewable portfolio standard requiring utilities to generate 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020 was struck from the bill.

What we needed was a bill to decrease our energy dependence on foreign oil, but this bill will not conserve a drop of oil. We need to protect our consumers, our public lands, and our public health. Instead, this bill weakens protections. We need to give a boost to the renewable energy sector, but instead the bill is a kickback to the fossil fuel industry.

We now need to do the right thing and oppose cloture. We need to spend more time developing the right energy policy for America.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I have serious concerns about several provisions found in the FAA reauthorization conference report. Before the Senate passed S. 824, the FAA reauthorization bill, we expressly prohibited additional privatization of air traffic controllers. We also eliminated a proposed cost-sharing requirement for local communities that participate in the essential air service program. This requirement would have placed an insurmountable burden on many remote communities struggling to maintain commercial air service. While I understand that Administrator Blakey today has promised our Senate colleagues to forestall privatization until the next fiscal year, I am concerned that the window is nevertheless open for eventual privatization and would not support such a result.

I remain concerned about the provisions in this bill affecting the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. As I discussed in my statement of November 17, 2003, the legal obligations of Federal agencies to evaluate aviation projects under Federal environmental laws have not been repealed by the language in this bill, nor should they be. If better coordination is the intent of this legislation, there is ample authority contained in the existing NEPA statute and regulations for coordination among Federal agencies in performing required environmental reviews of these projects. The confusing statutory directions contained in this bill are both unnecessary and counterproductive if the desired result is efficient project completion.

I am disappointed that this conference report contains these provisions, and I will work to ensure that the FAA scrutinizes the potential consequences of privatization of air traffic controllers if that issue arises next year. In addition, as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will continue to conduct oversight pertaining to the implementation of environmental laws for these and other Federal projects.

Mr. President, today, together with Senators Hatch and Snowe, I am introducing, the Retirement Account Portability and Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation improves the portability of retirement savings by eliminating unnecessary complexities and barriers in the retirement savings system, and helps preserve retirement savings by giving American workers tools that will help them consolidate their retirement savings into one easily managed account.

In brief, this bill will make a number of improvements in the retirement savings system to help families preserve retirement assets. It will, for example, enhance the portability of retirement savings by expanding rollover options in traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, and SIMPLE Plans. The bill also clarifies that when employees are permitted to make after-tax contributions to retirement plans, those after-tax amounts may be rolled over into other retirement plans eligible to receive such rollovers. This clarification will make it easier for workers to move all elements of their 401(k) of 403(b) savings when they change jobs and move between private sector and the tax-exempt sector.

In addition, the bill builds on defined contribution plan reforms enacted in 2001 by requiring a shortened vesting schedule for employer non-elective contributions, such as profit-sharing contributions, to defined contribution plans. As a result, employer contributions will become employee property more quickly, helping workers to build more meaningful retirement benefits. This new vesting schedule corresponds to rules for 401(k) matching contributions enacted in 2001.

Another provision in the bill would end an unfair tax penalty faced by non-spouse beneficiaries. Today, when an employee dies, the benefits in that employee's retirement account are paid out to a non-spouse beneficiary in one payment. The beneficiary must pay tax on the entire amount, and is often forced into a higher tax bracket as a result of the payment. A provision in this bill would allow non-spouse beneficiaries--siblings, children, domestic partners, parents--to roll over the money from the plan to an IRA. This will prevent an immediate tax bite to grieving beneficiaries and allow them to withdraw the money from their IRA over five years or over their own life expectancy.

The bill also helps preserve retirement savings by allowing plans to designate default IRAs or annuity contracts to which employee rollovers may be directed. Employers should be more willing to establish default IRA and annuity rollover options as a result, making it easier for employees to keep savings in the retirement system when they change jobs.

For workers who leave a job without claiming their retirement benefits, the bill improves on the automatic rollover provisions enacted in 2001, by allowing certain small distributions from retirement plans to be sent to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), ensuring that participants are ultimately reunited with their earned benefits. The bill also expands the scope of the PBGC's successful Missing Participants program that matches workers with lost pension benefits.

Employees of state and local governments, including teachers, will benefit from a number of this bill's technical corrections that will facilitate the purchase of service credits in public pension programs, allowing state and local employees to more easily attain a full pension in the jurisdiction where they conclude their career. The bill also contains provisions that would clarify eligibility rights of certain state and local employees who participate in a Section 457 deferred compensation plan.

Congress must take every opportunity to encourage American workers not only to save for retirement, but also to preserve those hard-earned retirement savings. These portability improvements offer one set of tools for making it easier to navigate the retirement savings system and reach retirement with an adequate nest egg. There are many pressing and complex retirement issues that demand attention, but I am hopeful that this legislation, narrowly focused on portability, can be considered quickly and on its own merits.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Dairy Farm Workers Fairness Act.

Family dairy farms are critically important to our agricultural economy and to the rural way of life in many parts of the country. These farms support the rural economy by supporting the local tax base and many local businesses. The working landscape created by our farms, especially a patchwork of small farms, is also the best antidote for the urban sprawl that is overtaking so much of the country. And, of course, the availability of fresh, locally produced milk is an amenity that we have come to take for granted. To support our rural economies, the working landscape and our local food supply systems we need to help small family dairy farms survive and thrive.

The most difficult challenge to the family dairy farm, after the volatility in milk price, is finding and hiring workers. In my home State of Vermont, dairy farms are not only an important part of our economy; they are an institution that has come to define our landscape. Vermont's beauty lies in the green fields, the red barns and the cows grazing on the hillside. When a farm family sells their land, which in many cases may have been worked by them and their ancestors for 5 or more generations, the decision is often driven by the non-stop, 7 day a week, 365 days a year work schedule. As fewer rural residents choose to work in agriculture, these farmers have been forced to take on more themselves. The whole family can end up working without vacations, sick leave or having weekends off. Although dairy farming might not seem seasonal, the burden becomes particularly heavy during the growing season when planting, haying, harvesting and storage of feed must all occur.

Dairy farmers are being forced to explore other options to find a predictable source of qualified labor. While other agricultural businesses in the country benefit from the temporary workers qualified under the H2A Work Visa Program, dairy farms do not. The job of milking cows on dairy farms has been judged under the current H2A program to not meet the definition of temporary or seasonal and is thus excluded. The largest labor need on dairy farms during the growing season, remains the need for assistance with milking. The cows must be milked two or three times a day by hired help so the farmer is able to take on the more complex and specialized work of operating large machinery to plant and harvest. While the work of milking is not seasonal or temporary, the need for additional labor to accomplish the

work is seasonal and temporary. I believe the exclusion of dairy farming under the H2A program is an unintended problem in definitions, and our legislation is designed to fix that glitch. We must do this out of fairness, so that dairy farms can benefit from the same access to labor that other farms have, and more importantly to help our farms survive.

Recently, I heard from a farmer who owns and operates, along with his wife, a small dairy farm in central Vermont. The couple is nearing retirement age and have no children of their own. They had attempted to find a farm hand that could live on the farm and help with milking and some of the heavier chores. After placing ads in the paper and working with the state of Vermont's Department of Employment and Training, it became clear that their best option was to hire a family friend who had a strong desire to learn farming. Since the young man was from Honduras they began the visa process only to have their request for certification by the U.S. Department of Labor denied because their need was considered neither temporary nor seasonal. This farm plays such an important role in their rural Vermont community that I heard from several other constituents who asked for my assistance on this family's behalf. The couple continues to work their land but in doing so they are straining their health and pushing themselves harder than they should. They continue to operate their farm because they do not want to sell it since it is land that has been farmed for generations.

The legislation I am introducing today would allow this family farm, and so many others like it, to avail themselves of a labor source that exists for virtually every other farm in this country. By creating a period based on the summer growing season, dairy farms will be able to bring on extra help during the busiest part of the year, providing much needed relief for our farm families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting dairy farms across the United States by cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, together with Senators Hatch and Snowe, I am introducing, the Retirement Account Portability and Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation improves the portability of retirement savings by eliminating unnecessary complexities and barriers in the retirement savings system, and helps preserve retirement savings by giving American workers tools that will help them consolidate their retirement savings into one easily managed account.

In brief, this bill will make a number of improvements in the retirement savings system to help families preserve retirement assets. It will, for example, enhance the portability of retirement savings by expanding rollover options in traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, and SIMPLE Plans. The bill also clarifies that when employees are permitted to make after-tax contributions to retirement plans, those after-tax amounts may be rolled over into other retirement plans eligible to receive such rollovers. This clarification will make it easier for workers to move all elements of their 401(k) of 403(b) savings when they change jobs and move between private sector and the tax-exempt sector.

In addition, the bill builds on defined contribution plan reforms enacted in 2001 by requiring a shortened vesting schedule for employer non-elective contributions, such as profit-sharing contributions, to defined contribution plans. As a result, employer contributions will become employee property more quickly, helping workers to build more meaningful retirement benefits. This new vesting schedule corresponds to rules for 401(k) matching contributions enacted in 2001.

Another provision in the bill would end an unfair tax penalty faced by non-spouse beneficiaries. Today, when an employee dies, the benefits in that employee's retirement account are paid out to a non-spouse beneficiary in one payment. The beneficiary must pay tax on the entire amount, and is often forced into a higher tax bracket as a result of the payment. A provision in this bill would allow non-spouse beneficiaries--siblings, children, domestic partners, parents--to roll over the money from the plan to an IRA. This will prevent an immediate tax bite to grieving beneficiaries and allow them to withdraw the money from their IRA over five years or over their own life expectancy.

The bill also helps preserve retirement savings by allowing plans to designate default IRAs or annuity contracts to which employee rollovers may be directed. Employers should be more willing to establish default IRA and annuity rollover options as a result, making it easier for employees to keep savings in the retirement system when they change jobs.

For workers who leave a job without claiming their retirement benefits, the bill improves on the automatic rollover provisions enacted in 2001, by allowing certain small distributions from retirement plans to be sent to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), ensuring that participants are ultimately reunited with their earned benefits. The bill also expands the scope of the PBGC's successful Missing Participants program that matches workers with lost pension benefits.

Employees of state and local governments, including teachers, will benefit from a number of this bill's technical corrections that will facilitate the purchase of service credits in public pension programs, allowing state and local employees to more easily attain a full pension in the jurisdiction where they conclude their career. The bill also contains provisions that would clarify eligibility rights of certain state and local employees who participate in a Section 457 deferred compensation plan.

Congress must take every opportunity to encourage American workers not only to save for retirement, but also to preserve those hard-earned retirement savings. These portability improvements offer one set of tools for making it easier to navigate the retirement savings system and reach retirement with an adequate nest egg. There are many pressing and complex retirement issues that demand attention, but I am hopeful that this legislation, narrowly focused on portability, can be considered quickly and on its own merits.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Dairy Farm Workers Fairness Act.

Family dairy farms are critically important to our agricultural economy and to the rural way of life in many parts of the country. These farms support the rural economy by supporting the local tax base and many local businesses. The working landscape created by our farms, especially a patchwork of small farms, is also the best antidote for the urban sprawl that is overtaking so much of the country. And, of course, the availability of fresh, locally produced milk is an amenity that we have come to take for granted. To support our rural economies, the working landscape and our local food supply systems we need to help small family dairy farms survive and thrive.

The most difficult challenge to the family dairy farm, after the volatility in milk price, is finding and hiring workers. In my home State of Vermont, dairy farms are not only an important part of our economy; they are an institution that has come to define our landscape. Vermont's beauty lies in the green fields, the red barns and the cows grazing on the hillside. When a farm family sells their land, which in many cases may have been worked by them and their ancestors for 5 or more generations, the decision is often driven by the non-stop, 7 day a week, 365 days a year work schedule. As fewer rural residents choose to work in agriculture, these farmers have been forced to take on more themselves. The whole family can end up working without vacations, sick leave or having weekends off. Although dairy farming might not seem seasonal, the burden becomes particularly heavy during the growing season when planting, haying, harvesting and storage of feed must all occur.

Dairy farmers are being forced to explore other options to find a predictable source of qualified labor. While other agricultural businesses in the country benefit from the temporary workers qualified under the H2A Work Visa Program, dairy farms do not. The job of milking cows on dairy farms has been judged under the current H2A program to not meet the definition of temporary or seasonal and is thus excluded. The largest labor need on dairy farms during the growing season, remains the need for assistance with milking. The cows must be milked two or three times a day by hired help so the farmer is able to take on the more complex and specialized work of operating large machinery to plant and harvest. While the work of milking is not seasonal or temporary, the need for additional labor to accomplish the

work is seasonal and temporary. I believe the exclusion of dairy farming under the H2A program is an unintended problem in definitions, and our legislation is designed to fix that glitch. We must do this out of fairness, so that dairy farms can benefit from the same access to labor that other farms have, and more importantly to help our farms survive.

Recently, I heard from a farmer who owns and operates, along with his wife, a small dairy farm in central Vermont. The couple is nearing retirement age and have no children of their own. They had attempted to find a farm hand that could live on the farm and help with milking and some of the heavier chores. After placing ads in the paper and working with the state of Vermont's Department of Employment and Training, it became clear that their best option was to hire a family friend who had a strong desire to learn farming. Since the young man was from Honduras they began the visa process only to have their request for certification by the U.S. Department of Labor denied because their need was considered neither temporary nor seasonal. This farm plays such an important role in their rural Vermont community that I heard from several other constituents who asked for my assistance on this family's behalf. The couple continues to work their land but in doing so they are straining their health and pushing themselves harder than they should. They continue to operate their farm because they do not want to sell it since it is land that has been farmed for generations.

The legislation I am introducing today would allow this family farm, and so many others like it, to avail themselves of a labor source that exists for virtually every other farm in this country. By creating a period based on the summer growing season, dairy farms will be able to bring on extra help during the busiest part of the year, providing much needed relief for our farm families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting dairy farms across the United States by cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if I may? I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, on Monday, I addressed the Senate to share my concerns about the environmental impact of the Energy conference report. These provisions are a direct reflection of the manner in which this bill was developed and the flawed conference process used to produce it.

Nearly 100 sections of this bill are in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We were not consulted on any of these provisions--not on any of them.

In some cases, such as on the issue of nuclear security, the Environment and Public Works Committee reported legislation on a bipartisan basis. The Senate could have taken up the reported bill and passed it.

Instead, they stuck the provisions of the original introduced version of this bill in this report. Now my committee will likely have to go back and clean up this language if the bill becomes law. This could have been avoided, if the conferees had spoken to my committee in the first place.

I am deeply concerned that the conference report before us does not represent the kind of forward-looking, balanced energy policy that our Nation needs. As I mentioned earlier this week, it does not go far enough in reducing our reliance on imported oil. Further, the bill fails to provide appropriate and adequate remedies to prevent a recurrence of the electricity blackout the Northeast experienced this summer or the crisis that the West experienced 3 years ago.

The Energy legislation fails to address other important issues such as a renewable portfolio standard or climate change.

The bill contains waivers of environmental laws, and it provides for unjustified subsidies and porkbarrel programs. But, worst of all, this bill seriously harms our environment.

On November 7, 2003, I wrote all Members of the Senate listing seven of what I believe to be the most troubling environmental provisions of this conference report. The Environment and Public Works Committee has jurisdiction over all of these items. Six of the seven items outlined in my letter are now in the bill. The bill has not one but two provisions extending compliance deadlines for Federal ozone pollution standards.

I also mentioned in my letter that I was concerned the bill would delay our new Federal mercury emission standards for utilities. It doesn't do that. Instead, it authorizes $1.5 billion in compliance assistance grants for the utilities. Instead, the bill proposes to pay up to 50 percent of these compliance costs. This is poor policy.

I would like to review the status of some of the other provisions I described in my November 7 letter in more detail.

First, I would like to let colleagues know that the renewable fuels title in the conference report differs significantly from the language reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee in the 107th Congress. The provisions that my committee reported were ones contained in the energy legislation that the Senate passed this year and last year.

This conference report will shield companies that make, use, or market toxic gasoline additive MTBE from Federal and State product liability lawsuits.

Let me repeat that. It will shield companies that make, use, or market the toxic gasoline additive MTBE from Federal and State product liability lawsuits.

MTBE has contaminated ground water in every State of this Nation. This provision was not included in the Senate-passed bill. This provision shifts an estimated $29 billion in cleanup costs from oil and chemical companies to State and local American taxpayers.

The General Accounting Office estimates that there are at least 150,000 MTBE-contaminated sites nationwide.

Vermont has 851 of those sites. Public and private drinking water systems in my State have been polluted by MTBE. If the water right here in the Capitol building was contaminated with MTBE, we would ban this toxin today.

Even though we know MTBE is environmentally harmful, the conference report dramatically extends the time that this product can be added to our gasoline before we pull it off the market. In fact, it may be extended forever.

Besides the MTBE problem, the renewable fuels provisions in this conference report are deeply flawed.

The Senate's renewable fuels title was a carefully drafted package which balanced regional interests. Now, it is unbalanced in so many ways.

For instance, the Senate put positive environmental provisions into our renewable fuels package. One provision allowed Northeastern States to require reformulated gasoline statewide.

We also provided the Environmental Protection Agency with the authority to better regulate fuel additives to prevent future MTBE-like situations.

We provided States with authority to reduce the emissions from fuels if too much ethanol was being used. These are all gone.

Although I support renewable fuels and ethanol, this package has changed so dramatically that it is harmful to the air and water. I cannot support using the fuels provisions of the Clean Air Act to damage air quality.

A second item from my letter is the treatment of ozone pollution standards in the conference report.

The conferees have agreed to include an extraneous new provision amending the ozone nonattainment designation process in Title I of the Clean Air Act.

This is the part of the act that officially tells the public how dirty or clean the air is. It tells the public whether their area meets the health-based ozone standards and it determines what must be done to help clean up the air in that area and for its downwind areas.

This is an entirely new provision, it was not considered by either the Senate or the House of Representatives.

This provision, inserted in the secret conference, would allow polluted areas off the hook for controlling ozone pollution for years at a time. It would extend the deadline for compliance with the ozone standard almost indefinitely for many areas.

It would also reach back in time and declare some cities with serious air quality problems as ``clean.'' This whole provision is a direct attack on the Clean Air Act and bad for public health.

As a result, people downwind will suffer. The air of the communities downwind of these ``extended compliance'' or ``reclassified'' areas will get dirtier. There will be more asthma and more respiratory problems.

This provision is not the answer to transported pollution. The answer is for this administration to get cracking on protecting air quality.

Changing cities' ozone compliance deadlines under the Clean Air Act does not increase our Nation's alternative energy supplies.

This provision is not an energy policy measure. It does not offer an energy-related solution to compliance with ozone pollution standards, and does not belong in this bill.

The changes put in here by a Congressman from Texas are also unfair to States and cities that have already achieved compliance with the national ozone standards. These States and cities have worked hard and invested resources in controlling their pollution.

All their work will have been for naught.

There are other cities that have been ``bumped up'' or classified as having more serious ozone problems. EPA has already asked them to undertake more stringent ozone control efforts.

These stronger measures are already required and being implemented in numerous cities throughout the Nation including: Chicago, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Wilmington, Trenton, Los Angeles, and Sacramento.

Mr. President, in addition to this general assault on public health, the conferees have included one other little gem. EPA is prohibited from imposing any requirements of the Clean Air Act on an area of Southwest Michigan for 2 years.

Obviously, this provision was also not contained in either the Senate or House bills. Nor is it good public health policy.

Not only is the Clean Air Act substantially amended in this bill, but the Clean Water Act is as as well. The conferees have included language similar to a provision in the House-passed 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 industrial activity. The conference report exempts oil and gas construction sites 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.

According to EPA estimates, this change would exempt at least 30,000 small oil and gas sites from clean water requirements. That is a terrible rollback of current law.

Another troubling section of this bill is the leaking underground storage tank provisions. This issue is also in the Environment and Public Works Committee jurisdiction.

This is another case where my committee unanimously passed a bill that is stronger than the provisions in this conference report.

The conference report's inspection provisions are so lax that a tank last inspected in 1999 may not be reinspected until 2009. The bill my committee passed, and that I supported, would require inspections of all tanks every 2 years.

While the underground tank program needs reform, the conference report takes a step backward. It allows leaking tanks to remain undetected for years. And, in many cases, it allows the polluter off the hook for cleaning up his own mess.

Let's review what we are debating today: An energy bill. Actually, it is an energy producers' bill; an energy polluters' bill; an energy profiteers' bill.

The three Ps: Producers, polluters, profiteers.

I would like to focus briefly on the polluters.

A senior member of the conference committee reported that, yes, this bill will not reduce our reliance on polluting sources of energy. But it will secure our energy independence.

I agree with the first statement, that with this bill our Nation becomes more addicted to energy sources that pollute. In fact, I would say that this energy bill equals pollution.

Four words and a numeric symbol say it all here on my chart.

Energy bill equals pollution.

This bill pollutes our surface and groundwater by exempting oil and gas development from provisions of the Clean Water Act.

This bill pollutes our drinking water by allowing MTBE, a toxic fuel additive, to seep into our public and private drinking water systems.

This bill pollutes our land by allowing unlimited development of energy installations on public lands, including parks, wildlife refuges, and sensitive areas.

And this bill pollutes our air in so many different ways; primarily by extending pollution compliance deadlines and continuing to avoid serious progress in cleaning up our air.

Pollution, that is what we are voting on in this legislation.

A vote for this bill is a vote for greater pollution.

This is wrong. The American people do not want energy security at the expense of the environment. The word ``conservation'' and the word ``conservative'' are closely related. I am an independent Senator, but I consider myself to be a careful legislator.

I seek to be conservative. I try not to support legislation that exploits our natural resources and pollutes our environment. This bill abandons that approach. It is an aggressive, overreaching measure. I oppose this bill, and all other Senators should as well.

Mr. President, one last thing I should note for interested Members is that this Barton ozone provision is not the same as the former Clinton ``bump-up'' policy. That policy was a case-by-case basis and it applied only to the outgoing 1-hour ozone standard.

Also, the areas receiving the benefit of not being ``bumped-up'' to a higher nonattainment status under the Clinton policy had to demonstrate that their emissions did not cause problems downwind. That protection appears nowhere in Barton.

This Barton provision completely disrupts the Clean Air Act's designation process and appears to do it indefinitely.

I hope the Congressman from Texas is willing to pay the hospital and doctor bills of all the children whose health he and his Congress will damage if this bad bill becomes law. Every person who votes for cloture and for this bill should also be held responsible.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page explanation of how the Barton provision is different from the former Clinton policy.

Mr. President, today I recognize the outstanding contributions made by Edith Miller, outgoing Executive Director for the Vermont School Boards Association, VSBA.

Edie, as she is known to her colleagues, friends, and family, joined the Vermont School Boards Association in December 1997 after previously serving for many years as the director of the University of Vermont's Continuing Education Program.

Edie also served with great distinction on numerous boards dedicated to the arts and community welfare. Her participation in local government is noteworthy. She has worn many hats, from holding positions on the town zoning and planning commissions to her current role as Chair of the East Montpelier Select Board.

I also had the pleasure and benefit of having her husband, Martin Miller, on staff during my tenure as Vermont Attorney General from 1969 through 1972.

Over the years, various individuals have described Edie Miller as a strong and articulate voice in support of public education. She possesses a tireless work ethic and an ability to identify critical issues, analyze the information, and communicate that information not only to the VSBA members, but also to local State and Federal officials.

Edie was a driving force in the creation and implementation of the Vermont Education Leadership Alliance Project, VELA. She worked diligently with her colleagues in the Vermont Superintendents Association and the Vermont Principals' Association to address the critical shortage of principals, superintendents and school board members in Vermont. The program was designed to train and certify

school leaders, thereby increasing their effectiveness and reducing turnover. Although VELA is now under the capable leadership of David Ford, Edie still remains very active on its Board of Directors.

Her remarkable skill at working with a broad constituency has earned Edie enormous respect within Vermont's education community. Edie is not afraid to pursue any idea that she believes will improve outcomes for Vermont's children.

To underscore my efforts to increase funding of special education, Edie met with members of every school board throughout Vermont, convincing them to sign a petition asking the federal government to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This was not an easy task, but she persevered. These petitions were presented to me in Vermont, bound in a red ribbon. During Senate debate of the various special education funding proposals I have sponsored, I take these petitions with me to the chamber. I can tell you that those petitions have made a deep impression on my colleagues.

I have been very fortunate to work closely with Edie on a number of education issues. I have always appreciated her keen insight and her insistence on carefully weighing all aspects of proposals before making a policy decision.

For Edie, it is important to increase educational opportunities for all students. For Edie, first and foremost, it is and always will be about the kids.

Edie has left an indelible mark on Vermont's education landscape. Though she may be stepping away from her responsibilities at VSBA, I know she will not be stepping away from education.

So, it is with great pleasure that I offer my congratulations to Edie Miller on her stellar accomplishments as executive director for the Vermont School Boards Association and her unyielding commitment to the education of Vermont's children.