Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn yesterday of the death in Iraq of another of Vermont's sons. LT Pierre Piche of Starksboro, VT was one of 17 brave young soldiers who died in the crash of two Blackhawk helicopters last Saturday. This brings to five the number of

Vermonters who have given their lives in Iraq.

The newspaper articles reporting on the death of Lieutenant Piche, and also on the Nov. 7 death of SSG Scott Rose, a young man whose wife and parents in-law are from Springfield, VT, bring home the heart- wrenching pain felt by those who have lost a son or daughter, mother or father, sister or brother, or close friend in this war.

Lieutenant Piche was Lisa Johnson's only child. Ms. Johnson speaks of the daily anxiety she faced hearing the reports of dead and wounded and wondering if it was her son. At first, she turned for consolation to her father, a World War II veteran. Tragically, he died in July. Hearing reports of the helicopter crash last Saturday, she spent the rest of the weekend with her stomach in knots until she received a phone call from her daughter in-law, Cherish, with the simple, chilling words ``They're here.''

Army officers had come to Lieutenant Piche's home to tell his wife that the lieutenant was dead. An hour later, officers arrived at Ms. Johnson's home to deliver the same message.

Staff Sergeant Rose became a father for the first time on July 31. He never saw his child, though. He already had left for Iraq and was unable to get home on leave before the tragic crash that ended his life. His wife Michele Rose is now left to raise their infant daughter in his absence.

I have been concerned throughout this conflict, and most particularly during the recent debate on the President's request for an additional $87 billion, that our focus on the financial costs and broader strategic and tactical questions associated with the war has blinded us somewhat to the brutal anguish faced by those who have lost a loved one in Iraq. We must never forget that each and every casualty suffered in Iraq delivers a crushing blow to many here at home. Moreover, we must have sympathy for the terrible anxiety faced daily by the families of men and women serving in Iraq. This war has many victims and we must not lose sight of their pain.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the two newspaper articles detailing this war's effects on the lives of these two Vermont families.

There being objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[From the Burlington Free Press, Nov. 18, 2003]

Fifth Vermont Soldier Dies in Iraq

(By Brent Hallenbeck)

Starksboro.--Pierre Piche last spoke to his mother a few

weeks ago by phone from Iraq. He told her he wanted to come

home to his wife of 3 years and earn his master's degree so

he could become a teacher.

His mother had recently sent him a rubber koi fish, and he

said he planned to have a pond filled with the tranquil

Japanese fish. ``He tried not to focus on how dangerous it

was getting over there. He just wanted peace,'' his mother,

Lisa Johnson, said Monday afternoon at her home in

Starksboro. ``He was determined to do what he needed to do to

keep his men safe and get home.''

Piche, 28 and 16 of his fellow soldiers died Saturday when

their Black Hawk helicopters crashed, possibly as a result of

enemy fire, in Mosul, Iraq. The crash is the single deadliest

incident since the war began in Iraq 8 months ago.

Piche, a first lieutenant with the Army's 101st Airborne

Division, is the fifth soldier with Vermont roots to die in

the war. He is the only child of Lisa Johnson, who has wanted

to pull Piche back into her arms ever since he was deployed

to Iraq a month before the war began.

``I wanted to take him home. When your child goes into

something dangerous, a mother goes and gets him,'' Johnson

said, fighting tears. ``It's been a pretty hellish time since

February.''

Piche grew up in Colchester, where he attended Malletts Bay

School. His mother remembers that Piche was a complex child

who would ask heavy questions about the origins of the

universe or the workings of the human body and expect, almost

demand, an answer.

``When he was born I called him my Mr. Magoo because he was

this very serious little boy,'' she said, pointing to a

photograph of her and her 2-year-old son sitting in the

woods. The child was wearing an expression that was intense

but wise. ``He was like a little old man right away,'' she

said.

He was also ``full of all the right kind of mischief,''

according to Hugh Johnson, who became his stepfather when

Piche was 6. He remembers once that his stepson tried

unsuccessfully to ride his bike up a boat ramp on dry land.

``Suddenly there was a great tumbling of boy and steel,''

Hugh Johnson said.

The family moved when Piche was 9 to South Hero, where he

attended Folsom School. Lisa Johnson said he demonstrated his

kindly nature by taking in all sorts of animals, from dogs

and cats to iguanas, chickens and geese.

The family moved to Starksboro when Piche was 14. He went

to private school in Connecticut, then college, including for

a time the University of Vermont. He graduated from Middle

Tennessee State in 1998 after majoring in political science.

Piche was always patriotic and believed in serving his

country, his mother said. While in college he joined the Army

Reserve and soon after entered the Army full-time, rising

through the ranks of the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, KY,

where he and his wife, Cherish, made their home.

Pierre Piche made his final visit to Vermont last

Christmas. Friends and family came to Starksboro for festive

holiday parties. He took Cherish Piche, who has lived in the

South most of her life, out for snowmobile rides and sledding

expeditions.

War in Iraq was looming last December, and Piche and his

mother knew he was likely to be deployed. ``I deliberately

avoided that subject,'' Lisa Johnson said. ``He didn't want

to talk about it either. We knew, and there wasn't any

point.''

She held out hope he would be safe. Months earlier, he had

switched jobs, from a command post to maintenance duties that

would perhaps be less risky. ``The idea was he wouldn't be

out there on the front line,'' Hugh Johnson said.

Piche arrived in Iraq 9 months ago, and the Johnsons

followed the news intently from Starksboro. Whenever Lisa

Johnson heard a soldier died anywhere near where she believed

her son was she would cry, and immediately struggle to gather

her senses--as a social worker, she said it was essential to

be composed.

Her father, Robert Fusco of Jonesville, would console her.

A World War II veteran, Fusco would tell her Piche was well-

trained, smart and vigilant, and would make sure he and his

soldiers would come home. ``Anytime I got scared my father

would tell me to toughen up,'' Lisa Johnson said. Fusco died

of heart failure July 8, proud to the end of his grandson's

accomplishments.

Piche e-mailed his mother often, and recently sent photos

showing him in his cropped brown hair and brown camouflage

while holding an automatic weapon.

Another photo showed him in uniform holding a dog. Lisa

Johnson said he frequently discovered abandoned pets in Iraq

and tried to find good homes for them. ``Even in the middle

of chaos he could find good things,'' she said. ``That's what

good guys do.''

Piche's unit was being moved from one location to another

Saturday, a move he was dreading. He told his mother that

Iraq was becoming a more dangerous place--more aggressive,

less predictable.

She heard Saturday about the two helicopters crashing in

Mosul. ``I spent the rest of the weekend in knots,'' she

said. She and Cherish Piche spoke by phone all day Saturday,

telling each other that they hoped by some fluke Piche was

not on either of those helicopters, and just couldn't get to

a computer to e-mail either of them to say he was safe. Then

Cherish Piche called Sunday afternoon. Her words were simple:

``They're here.'' Army soldiers had come to her home at Fort

Campbell to say that her husband was dead.

An hour later, at 5 p.m., two soldiers came to the gray

Cape Cod on Big Hollow Road to give Lisa and Hugh Johnson the

same news. ``I just said, `No, no, no,' and I went outside

and I was crazy,'' Lisa Johnson said. She wandered through

the miles of woods behind her home. ``I just cried and

screamed--`No, it can't be, it just can't be.' ''

Hugh Johnson said he knows that if he could, his stepson

would have been trying to save his fellow soldiers until the

last minute. Pride doesn't translate to solace, not when

parents are mourning the loss of a son who was always giving

to others. ``It's such a waste,'' Hugh Johnson said. ``He

should have had another 60 years of doing that.'' ``I'm proud

of him and I'm proud of him no matter what,'' Lisa Johnson

said. ``That doesn't make his dying any easier.''

The Johnsons and Piche's widow are making funeral

arrangements while awaiting for his body to return home. Lisa

Johnson said they hope to bury him near his grandfather,

Fusco, at Holy Rosary Cemetery in Richmond.

Meanwhile, the family is welcoming a constant flow of

visitors bearing generous amounts of food and any words of

consolation they can muster. The food and the words are

appreciated, Lisa Johnson said, but not important. ``All that

matters,'' she said, ``is that they loved him.''

Mr. President, in January 2003, the Senate approved a very similar amendment by Senator Inhofe to the Fiscal Year 2003 consolidated appropriations bill. That amendment initiated a study at the National Academy of Sciences to look at the effects of the EPA's first set of New Source Review rules, published on December 31, 2002, on emissions, human health, pollution control technology, and energy efficiency.

That amendment provided that the National Academy will submit an interim report to Congress no later than March 3, 2004, approximately 1 year after passage.

In September 2003, the EPA provided an oral authorization to the academy to begin work. Unfortunately, the agency has still not provided the contract papers necessary for the project to start. I do not know what the holdup might be.

However, that study, if it ever gets funded by EPA, would not review the effects of the second set of NSR rules on routine equipment replacement which were published on October 27, 2003. It should and, since EPA has not yet funded the study and it has not started, there is still plenty of time to revise the mission statement and do the work. I am advised by academy staff that this expansion would entail minimal additional cost to EPA.

As I have noted, my amendment simply extends the NAS study to cover the effects of the second set of rules looking at the same criteria and extends the interim report deadline by 10 months to January 1, 2005.

I am pleased the managers have agreed to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein.

Mr. President, like every loyal Red Sox fan, I believe that next season my team will be victorious. I bring this same level of optimism to my efforts to reduce the amount of wasted resources and litter caused by discarded beverage containers.

I rise today to speak again to the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, the bottle bill, convinced that this is our year.

I have long been an advocate for increased recycling. Vermont passed its bottle bill in 1972 when I was state attorney general. In 1975, during my first session as a Representative in the U.S. House, I introduced a national bottle bill, closely resembling Vermont's very successful example. Last Congress, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I convened the first Congressional hearing in many years on recycling, in which the committee heard expert testimony on the merits of a national program to recycle beverage containers.

The reason that I continue to push this issue is simple--it makes sense. Beverage container recycling is one of the simplest ways to see a dramatic improvement in our environment. As this chart shows, 120 billion--let me repeat, 120 billion with a ``b''--beverage containers were wasted by not being recycled in 2001.

If we could raise the Nation's recycling rate to 80 percent, we would save the equivalent of 300 million barrels of oil over the next 10 years and eliminate 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. States that have enacted bottle bills also have benefited by reducing road side litter by up to 84 percent.

These savings may sound unrealistic. But in Vermont alone, recycling efforts in 2001 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 94,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent. That's equal to approximately two-thirds of all industrial carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion in Vermont and 4.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. To me, those savings sound remarkable.

Why a refundable deposit program? Thirty years of experience demonstrates that refundable deposit bottle bills are dramatically more effective than voluntary efforts. As this chart illustrates, the ten States that have implemented deposit laws recycle more containers than all of the other 40 States combined.

While I applaud curbside and other voluntary recycling efforts, the 71 percent of Americans who live in non-bottle bill States account for only 28 percent of recycled beverage containers. My bill, the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, strikes a balance between the wishes of industry, the authority of individual States, and the needs of a healthy environment.

Unlike traditional bottle bills, this legislation would fully harness market incentives by setting an 80 percent recovery performance standard and allowing industry the freedom to design the most efficient deposit-return program to reach the standard. States that already have bottle bills will retain their authority to continue their programs in their own individual ways as long as they meet the national performance standard.

This past Saturday, November 15, 2003, was America Recycles Day in Vermont and across the country. Two years ago, to help commemorate the 2001 America Recycles Day, I participated in a public service announcement to raise awareness regarding the need to buy recycled goods.

The importance of recycling deserves, however, more than a 30-second public service announcement and more than its own day on the calendar. For it to work, recycling must be a commitment of all of ours each and every day of the year.

Vermont's commitment to recycling has provided some impressive statistics. For example, in 2001, 31 percent of Vermont's municipal waste was diverted from landfills. That year, 13,260 tons of containers were recycled through soft drink and beer distributors and materials recovery facilities.

The benefit of these programs is, of course, that they help keep our Green Mountains green.

I commend and thank Governor Jim Douglas for his many recent initiatives to encourage and improve the efficiency of recycling across Vermont. For example, under Governor Douglas' leadership, Vermont has implemented beverage container recycling programs at 20 State information centers.

In the first phase, in less than 2 months, over 200 pounds of aluminum, glass, and plastic were recovered from 51,00 visitors passing through one such information center in Willison, VT. And today, the U.S. Senate's other Vermonter, Patrick Leahy, joins me and Senators Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, and John Kerry as original cosponsors as I introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003.

I recommend that all take advantage of this wonderful system we have in Vermont and in other States. I ask everyone to take a close look and see if we wouldn't be much better off if the rest of the country follows suit.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the conference report on H.R. 6, the comprehensive energy legislation, was released over the weekend. As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have come to the floor today to share my deep concern that this bill will endanger our environment and unfairly benefit special interests.

The final conference report contains provisions that significantly change environmental law and undermine long-standing environmental protections. It is my sincere hope that the conference will remove many of these provisions during their meeting today.

The Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve, has jurisdiction over environmental matters, and we were not consulted in the development of any of these provisions.

This bill drastically rewrites existing clean air law. It postpones ozone attainment standards across the country. This is a matter never considered in either House or Senate bill that has been inserted into the conference report. By inserting this language, the conference will expose the public to dangerous air pollution emissions for far more time than under existing law. Several Federal courts have already struck down regulatory proposals similar to the provisions in the conference report as violations of the Clean Air Act.

The gasoline additive MTBE, which is known to contaminate groundwater, would have been phased out in 4 years in the Senate bill. This conference report extends the phaseout for a decade and includes provisions that would allow the President to decide to continue the MTBE use.

This bill provides legal immunity to large petrochemical companies from ``defective product'' liability arising from the contamination of groundwater supplies by the gasoline additive MTBE.

It also terminates a lawsuit filed by the State of New Hampshire by reaching back to provide immunity as of September 5, 2003. This language allows a contaminating product to be used, possibly indefinitely, and provides communities with no fiscal remedies to clean it up.

As a further subsidy to the industry, the bill exempts all construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from coverage under the runoff requirements of the Clean Water Act.

This means that contaminants, such as toxic chemicals, grease, and other pollutants from oil and gas drilling, will end up in our waterways.

Conferees have also removed hydraulic fracturing, an underground oil and gas recovery technique, from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is a process in which water, sand, and toxic chemicals are injected under high pressure into oil- and gas-bearing rocks, potentially polluting drinking water supplies.

This bill suspends these existing drinking water protections, even though courts have found that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated to protect the public health.

Also, the conferees have included language to speed up energy exploration and development at the expense of environmental review and public participation on both Federal and non-Federal lands. The public will have less time to review and consider the impact of these projects.

When these reviews occur, oil, gas and geothermal energy companies can be reimbursed through credits against future royalties payable to the taxpayer for the costs of undertaking environmental assessments. These provisions subsidize energy development on our public lands.

The conferees have also included provisions that mandate specific timeframes and deadlines for agency decisions on Federal oil and gas leases. This would establish oil and gas development as the dominant use of our Federal public lands.

Our other Federal lands are at risk of becoming electric transmission corridors with this bill as well. The Department of Energy can open new areas for transmission line construction, harming the wildlife, water quality, recreational and other values we have sought to protect for years.

My colleagues should know that this is not an exhaustive list of the environmental provisions of concern in this bill.

In almost every title, there are significant changes to long standing environmental law and policy. In addition, important issues which received majority support in the Senate, such as a Renewable Portfolio Standard for electricity, requirements to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and adoption of sensible climate change policy, have been dropped.

While I support the establishment of a comprehensive energy policy for the United States, we should not use the final energy bill as a means to roll back important environmental protections.

This bill will not promote energy self-sufficiency, will not promote it, and will cause environmental damage. It is my sincere hope that these unwise provisions will be removed, and I urge my colleagues to consider seriously the environmental effects of this legislation in making their final decisions regarding whether or not to support this measure when it come before the Senate.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

Our colleagues in the House responded similarly to these issues. When the Senate and House bills went to conference, neither Chamber's legislation permitted privatization of air traffic controllers, nor did either bill contain an essential air service cost-share requirement.

Therefore, I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the final conference report allows both.

I am also very concerned about the provisions in this bill affecting the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. While not actually an amendment to NEPA, these provisions are more likely to lead to extended conflict, litigation and confusion--far from a streamlined result. In addition, the Department of Transportation has neither the authority nor the expertise to determine the environmental impact of various alternatives to a project under environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Other Federal entities, such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and Wildlife Service who have specific statutory mandates, must evaluate alternatives under Federal law when their jurisdiction is invoked.

For example, regulations governing wetlands permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act require the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate several factors such as ``fish and wildlife values,'' ``water quality,'' ``conservation,'' and ``aesthetics'' in determining whether a permit is in the public's interest. The Clean Water Act imposes specific substantive standards on the Corps' decision and prohibits the Corps from issuing a permit to fill a wetland if there is a less damaging practicable alternative. Under current law, the Corps has the authority to supplement NEPA documents with additional information in order to fulfill its legal responsibility. The legal obligations of these other agencies have not been repealed by the language in this bill, nor should they be.

There is ample authority contained in the existing NEPA statute and regulations for coordination among Federal agencies in performing required environmental reviews. The confusing statutory directions contained in this bill are both unnecessary and counterproductive if the desired result is efficient project completion.

Given its current content, I cannot support this conference report.

Just last year, Congress determined that, for security reasons, airport passenger screeners should be Federal employees. Why would we treat air traffic controllers differently? They play an equally important role in ensuring the safety of our air travelers.

Our air traffic control network safely guides more than 700 million passengers a year. In addition, the ATC network provides a crucial national security service by coordinating the national air space for military aircraft as well as for commercial aircraft. As we saw immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the ATC system must be prepared to respond quickly and efficiently in emergency situations.

In order to best ensure the safety of air travel in this country, our air traffic control network must remain a Federal responsibility. This bill permits privatization of air traffic control towers around the country.

I am also very concerned that the essential air service cost-share language found its way back into this legislation. The EAS program was created in 1978, when Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act, reflecting Congress's

belief that deregulation should not result in the elimination of airport service in rural communities. In my home State of Vermont, the Rutland State Airport depends on this program to maintain commercial service in and out of the Rutland region.

For many cash-strapped EAS communities, the local match required by the cost-share provision in this bill is insurmountable. Mandatory cost-shares will mean the end of commercial air service in many economically depressed rural areas. If we adopt this provision, we have essentially defeated the goal of the EAS program.

Both the House and the Senate acted on these two provisions earlier this year. The FAA conference report reverses the positions that a majority of our Members agreed to on the House and Senate floors. Rather than endorse the flaws found in this legislation, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1618, Senator Rockefeller's short-term extension of the Federal Aviation Administration programs. This bill provides the additional time we need to work out a long-term reauthorization package that represents the positions of a majority of Members of both Houses of Congress.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of Bellows Free Academy in Fairfax,

Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Lautenberg- Mikulski amendment increasing funding for the enforcement activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I would like to voice my strong support for this amendment. Without effective enforcement, our environmental laws will never succeed in reducing pollution and improving environmental quality. Simply put, the best environmental laws in the world mean nothing without vigorous enforcement.

Unfortunately, this administration does not share this sentiment. Just last week, the administration directed the EPA to abandon ongoing investigations of some 50 different facilities for violations of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review provisions. Apparently, gutting the rule itself was not enough. Pardons for big polluters--many of them large political contributors--seem to be the administration's preferred approach to environmental enforcement.

Lack of enforcement is hardly confined to the Clean Air Act. Indeed, a recent report from the EPA inspector general reveals an Agency failing to keep up with its enforcement duties across a number of different programs. According to the report, a majority of special agents-in-charge of environmental crimes states that they will not open a new case if they lack the resources necessary to pursue the case. In addition, formal enforcement actions under several key Clean Water Act programs have declined dramatically over the last 3 years. Specifically, the number of formal enforcement actions brought under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System declined by 45 percent between 1999 and 2001. Clear Water Act enforcement actions against large concentrated animal feeding operations declined by more than 90 percent between 2000 and 2002.

I ask my colleagues: What kind of message does this send to the Nation's polluters? What kind of message does it send to the American people?

On one hand, we have an administration that is openly hostile to environmental enforcement. On the other

hand, we have an EPA that is unable to initiate new environmental crimes cases and is dramatically scaling back on several major civil enforcement programs because the agency lacks adequate resources. I hope that Administrator Leavitt will work to remedy this situation, but I fear that much of the problem may ultimately lie with the White House.

Mr. President, the additional appropriation contained in this amendment represents a modest increase in the Agency's enforcement budget. But it is crucial one given the Agency's inability to keep up with its obligations to enforce this country's environmental laws. This amendment also sends a signal to the EPA and to the administration that the Senate takes environmental enforcement seriously. At the end of the day, the answer is not, as the administration would have it, to abandon existing enforcement actions.

Rather, the answer is to provide adequate resources and to demand more oversight to ensure that our environmental laws will not be empty words in the statute books.

Mr. President, I rise before you today to join my colleague, Senator Mikulski, in offering this amendment to increase the funds available for water infrastructure spending.

Since assuming the chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2001, I have spent many hours in the committee and here on the Senate floor discussing the pressing need for investment in our Nation's water infrastructure.

In the 107th Congress, the committee passed S. 1961, the Water Investment Act, which I introduced with Senators Graham, Crapo, and Smith of New Hampshire, which would have increased water infrastructure spending by $35 billion, providing $3.2 billion for clean water in the first year, and $2 billion for drinking water in the first year

The Bush administration opposed the bill, stating, ``. . . the administration does not support the funding levels contained in S. 1961.''

In December 2002, Senators Sarbanes and Voinovich and I, along with 38 Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle, sent a letter to the President asking him to provide $3.2 billion for clean water spending, and $2 billion for drinking water spending.

Instead, President Bush responded by proposing a 40 percent cut in water infrastructure spending to Congress in his fiscal year 2004 budget.

In March 2003, I cosponsored an amendment with Senators Mikulski, Sarbanes, Graham and Crapo to increase the allocation for water infrastructure spending in the budget resolution to $3.2 billion for clean water, and $2 billion for drinking water.

It was accepted by the Senate and dropped in conference with the House.

I do appreciate the work that the Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee did to restore clean water infrastructure spending to $1.35 billion, up from the President's request of $800 million--a significant step in the right direction.

The ironic thing about this issue, the actions we have taken over the last 2 years, and the lack of major progress is that there appears to be bipartisan consensus that water infrastructure spending has significant need, is critical to our Nation's water quality, leads to job growth, and enjoys broad support among the American people.

First--the needs are substantial. The EPA's own estimates show a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional investments are not made.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the spending gap for clean water needs is estimated to be between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years, and the spending gap for drinking water needs at between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years.

It is not solely the Federal Government's responsibility to fill this gap. However, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to provide a reasonable investment in water infrastructure, given the size of the anticipated needs.

Second--repair of a quickly deteriorating water infrastructure is critical to our Nation's water quality.

Our towns and cities, along with the Federal Government, have invested billions of dollars over the last 30 years to build the infrastructure to treat our wastewater and drinking water. It is with this infrastructure that the country has been able to return about 60 percent of our waters to swimming and fishing standards.

Even with those investments, we continue to fail to fully protect our waters from pollution, with over 40 percent of our Nation's waters still impaired.

Now, the progress we have made over the last 30 years stands on the brink of evaporation as the extensive water and wastewater infrastructure we have built nears the end of its useful life, and we are failing to reinvest

Third, estimates show that for every billion dollars invested in water infrastructure spending, approximately 40,000 jobs would be created. We must take action to prevent our economy from faltering. We are proposing to invest $5.2 billion in the State revolving funds.

The States will provide a 20-percent match of just over $1 billion. This could create over 200,000 jobs.

Yet despite the apparent consensus that there are significant needs, that healthy water infrastructure is in need of repair, that investment will increase job growth, and that Americans support investing in water infrastructure, we fail to act. Why? I cannot answer that question.

Just last month, the President recognized the importance of water infrastructure needs in Iraq with his request for an $87 billion supplemental spending package that provided about $4 billion for water infrastructure improvements.

It is appalling to me that the President is willing to support water infrastructure investment overseas while failing to recognize that Americans have the same needs here at home.

However, the fact that the President failed to recognize our water infrastructure needs, requested a 40-percent drop in water infrastructure spending, and sought emergency spending for water infrastructure in Iraq that was four times the amount he requested for domestic water infrastructure spending, does not justify the same failure by this Senate.

The amendment that I offer today with Senator Milkulski provides a downpayment on our water infrastructure needs. It provides an additional $3 billion for domestic water infrastructure improvements. This increase is $1.3 billion less than the amount this Senate approved for Iraq less than 2 weeks ago.

By voting aye on the amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland, each of you can take direct action to improve both the state of our Nation's waters and the state of our Nation's economy.

Today could be the day that the Senate finally changes the course of water infrastructure spending and votes decisively to live up to our responsibility and improve the quality of our Nation's waters.

The outcome is up to us. I urge you to support the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, hardly a day goes by without an announcement of new casualties in Iraq, a news story about the family of a fallen service member, or the profile of a heroic soldier learning to cope with the aftermath of wounds suffered in Iraq. While the conflict is Iraq prompts quick approval of the defense spending bills, there is less appreciation for mounting costs to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I was most distressed at last month's refusal by the White House to support the Senate's addition to the Iraq-Afghanistan emergency supplemental of $1.3 billion in funding for veterans' health care. Most Senators understand that military activities in Iraq are significantly increasing the burden on the VA, and supported the addition of $1.3 billion to the Iraq supplemental. Seeing that this amendment was poised for inclusion in the final bill, the White House sent notice to Congress that it would veto the entire package if money for the VA were included. Sadly, Congress gave in to administration pressure and removed this critical funding.

I am pleased that the Senate leadership finally saw fit to bring the VA-HUD appropriations bill to the Senate floor this week. This critical legislation, setting funding levels for fiscal year 2004, which actually began 6 weeks ago, is long overdue. This legislation provides $62 billion for the Veterans Administration, $27 billion of which goes to the Veterans Health Administration, an increase of $3.9 billion over last year's spending level and $1.3 billion over the President's request. Because of budget constraints and the unwillingness of the administration to endorse additional funding for the VA, the Senate Appropriations Committee designated the additional $1.3 billion as emergency spending so as not to count against the annual spending caps. However, this also made the increase subject to the President's approval, and it risked meeting the same fate as other increases rejected by President Bush.

I am very pleased that during debate on the VA-HUD appropriations bill, the

managers successfully offered an amendment to remove the emergency designation and incorporate the $1.3 billion into the bill, thereby greatly increasing the chances that this money will actually get to veterans this year. It seems that a majority of Senators have been listening to the few of us who have been decrying the state of VA funding for some time, and they are now coming to understand that even these modest increases do not make up for the continual shortfall experienced by the VA in recent years. It's long past time that this trend be reversed.

The Senate VA-HUD appropriations bill also supports the Rural Health Initiative, RHI, a successful examination of innovative methods of delivering health care to veterans in rural areas. The VA must become more adept at spreading its health care dollars further across rural America. I am encouraged that the RHI will help improve the VA's performance in this area.

After making significant progress on this legislation, I was discouraged that the Senate leadership decided to pull this VA-HUD bill off the floor prior to its completion in order to begin a 30-hour discussion of the status of judicial nominations. While I agree that judicial nominations are important, I was most disappointed that a largely partisan political debate took precedence over the completion of much needed funding for veterans. I urge the leadership to quickly bring us back to the people's business--the work we were sent here to accomplish.

I would like to mention another issue of concern to veterans that came before the Senate this week. For years I have been a primary promoter of concurrent receipt--the payment to disabled veterans of the full disability and retirement benefits to which they are entitled. For many years, disabled military retirees have been forced to choose between receiving their full retirement pay or their disability benefits. This injustice has finally been recognized by a majority of the Congress, in large part due to the unflagging commitment of Senator Harry Reid. In recent years, Congress has moved to partially restore these benefits. The fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization conference report contains legislation allowing combat disabled veterans with a disability greater than 10 percent to receive their full disability and retirement benefits. It also provides for a 10-year phase-in of full disability and retirement benefits for those with a noncombat related disability rating of over 50 percent.

While I am pleased to see this important improvement in benefit payments, I am concerned that some might view this as the end of the road for this issue. I intend to work closely with Senator Reid to continue to press the administration and the Congress to fully fund concurrent receipt for all disabled veterans. This is a basic principle of fairness that is not rectified by halfway measures.

I regret that, for a number of reasons, I was unable to support passage of the Defense authorization conference report, despite its progress on concurrent receipt. Unfortunately, the legislation included unacceptable environmental provisions. As a former Navy Officer and 30- year reservist. I understand the need for the best possible military training. As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works, EPW, Committee, I was quite concerned by a request from the Bush administration to exempt the Department of Defense, DoD, from five of our Nation's most important and effective environmental laws. After careful review by the EPW Committee, I was convinced that the waivers contained in current law are quite sufficient to provide flexibility for DoD if it needs greater leeway to conduct military readiness exercises.

In an effort to forge a reasonable compromise between DoD's request and sound environmental policy, Senator Lautenberg and I authorzed as amendment to the defense authorization bill that was supported by a majority of Senators. While this amendment carefully balanced the Defense Department's need for training with the Interior Department's mandate to protect endangered species, it was dropped in conference with the House of Representatives. In its place, the conferees added language providing DoD with broad authority to sidestep the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, even dropping requirements that any waivers be related to military readiness. I cannot in good conscience support legislation that undermines such critical environmental legislation. Therefore, I had no choice but to vote against the defense authorization conference agreement in spite of its improvement on concurrent receipt.

Mr. President, we have a long way to go before our veterans health system is fully funded and before veterans receive the full compensation they deserve for their years of service to the Nation. I hope that the daily stories of herosim coming out of Iraq will compel more Members of Congress to stand with the veterans and not to rest until justice is done.

Mr. President, like every loyal Red Sox fan, I believe that next season, my team will be victorious. I bring this same level of optimism to my efforts to reduce the amount of wasted resources and litter caused by discarded beverage containers. I rise today to introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, the Bottle Bill, convinced that this is our year.

I have long been an advocate for increased recycling. Vermont passed its Bottle Bill in 1972 when I was State Attorney General. In 1975, during my first session as a Representative in the U.S. House, I introduced a national Bottle Bill, closely resembling Vermont's very successful example. Last Congress, as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I convened the first congressional hearing in many years on recycling, in which the Committee heard expert testimony on the merits of a national program to recycle beverage containers.

The reason that I continue to push this issue is simple--it makes sense. Beverage container recycling is one of the simplest ways to see a dramatic improvement in our environment. One hundred and twenty billion--let me repeat, 120 billion with a ``B''--beverage containers were wasted by not being recycled in 2001. If we could raise the Nation's recycling rate to 80 percent, we would save the equivalent of 300 million barrels of oil over the next ten years and eliminate 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. States that have enacted bottle bills also have benefited by reducing road side litter by up to 84 percent.

These savings may sound unrealistic. But, in Vermont alone, recycling efforts in 2001 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 94,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent. That's equal to approximately two-thirds of all industrial carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion in Vermont and 4.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. To me, those savings sound remarkable.

Why a refundable deposit program? Thirty years of experience demonstrates that refundable deposit bottle bills are dramatically more effective than voluntary efforts. The ten States that have implemented deposit laws recycle more containers than all of the other 40 States combined. While I applaud curbside and other voluntary recycling efforts, the 71 percent of Americans who live in non-bottle bill States account for only 28 percent of recycled beverage containers.

My bill, the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, strikes a balance between the wishes of industry, the authority of individual states, and the needs of a healthy environment. Unlike traditional bottle bills, this legislation would fully harness market incentives by setting an 80 percent recovery performance standard and allowing industry the freedom to design the most efficient deposit- return program to reach the standard. States that already have bottle bills will retain their authority to continue their programs in their own individual ways as long as they meet the national performance standard.

This Saturday, November 15, 2003, is America Recycles Day in Vermont and across the country. Two years ago, to help commemorate the 2001 America Recycles Day, I participated in a public service announcement to raise awareness regarding the need to buy recycled goods. The importance of recycling deserves, however, more than a 30-second public service announcement and more than its own day on the calendar. For it to work, recycling must be a commitment of all of ours each and every day of the year.

Vermont's commitment to recycling has provided some impressive statistics. For example, in 2001, 31 percent of Vermont's municipal waste was diverted from landfills. That year, 13,260 tons of containers were recycled through soft drink and beer distributors and materials recovery facilities. The benefit of these programs is, of course, that they help keep our Green Mountains green. I commend and thank Governor Jim Douglas for his many recent initiatives to encourage and improve the efficiency of recycling across Vermont. For example, under Governor Douglas' leadership, Vermont has implemented beverage container recycling programs at 20 State information centers. In the first phase, in less than two months, over 200 pounds

of aluminum, glass, and plastic were recovered from 51,000 visitors passing through one such information center in Williston, VT.

And today, the U.S. Senate's other Vermonter, Patrick Leahy, joins me and Senators Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, and John Kerry as original cosponsors as I introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003.

Mr. President, like every loyal Red Sox fan, I believe that next season, my team will be victorious. I bring this same level of optimism to my efforts to reduce the amount of wasted resources and litter caused by discarded beverage containers. I rise today to introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, the Bottle Bill, convinced that this is our year.

I have long been an advocate for increased recycling. Vermont passed its Bottle Bill in 1972 when I was State Attorney General. In 1975, during my first session as a Representative in the U.S. House, I introduced a national Bottle Bill, closely resembling Vermont's very successful example. Last Congress, as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I convened the first congressional hearing in many years on recycling, in which the Committee heard expert testimony on the merits of a national program to recycle beverage containers.

The reason that I continue to push this issue is simple--it makes sense. Beverage container recycling is one of the simplest ways to see a dramatic improvement in our environment. One hundred and twenty billion--let me repeat, 120 billion with a ``B''--beverage containers were wasted by not being recycled in 2001. If we could raise the Nation's recycling rate to 80 percent, we would save the equivalent of 300 million barrels of oil over the next ten years and eliminate 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. States that have enacted bottle bills also have benefited by reducing road side litter by up to 84 percent.

These savings may sound unrealistic. But, in Vermont alone, recycling efforts in 2001 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 94,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent. That's equal to approximately two-thirds of all industrial carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion in Vermont and 4.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. To me, those savings sound remarkable.

Why a refundable deposit program? Thirty years of experience demonstrates that refundable deposit bottle bills are dramatically more effective than voluntary efforts. The ten States that have implemented deposit laws recycle more containers than all of the other 40 States combined. While I applaud curbside and other voluntary recycling efforts, the 71 percent of Americans who live in non-bottle bill States account for only 28 percent of recycled beverage containers.

My bill, the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, strikes a balance between the wishes of industry, the authority of individual states, and the needs of a healthy environment. Unlike traditional bottle bills, this legislation would fully harness market incentives by setting an 80 percent recovery performance standard and allowing industry the freedom to design the most efficient deposit- return program to reach the standard. States that already have bottle bills will retain their authority to continue their programs in their own individual ways as long as they meet the national performance standard.

This Saturday, November 15, 2003, is America Recycles Day in Vermont and across the country. Two years ago, to help commemorate the 2001 America Recycles Day, I participated in a public service announcement to raise awareness regarding the need to buy recycled goods. The importance of recycling deserves, however, more than a 30-second public service announcement and more than its own day on the calendar. For it to work, recycling must be a commitment of all of ours each and every day of the year.

Vermont's commitment to recycling has provided some impressive statistics. For example, in 2001, 31 percent of Vermont's municipal waste was diverted from landfills. That year, 13,260 tons of containers were recycled through soft drink and beer distributors and materials recovery facilities. The benefit of these programs is, of course, that they help keep our Green Mountains green. I commend and thank Governor Jim Douglas for his many recent initiatives to encourage and improve the efficiency of recycling across Vermont. For example, under Governor Douglas' leadership, Vermont has implemented beverage container recycling programs at 20 State information centers. In the first phase, in less than two months, over 200 pounds

of aluminum, glass, and plastic were recovered from 51,000 visitors passing through one such information center in Williston, VT.

And today, the U.S. Senate's other Vermonter, Patrick Leahy, joins me and Senators Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, and John Kerry as original cosponsors as I introduce the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I do not support the passage of the Syrian Accountability Act. The situation in the Middle East is a delicate one. It calls for subtle, creative diplomacy as the United States seeks to support its troops in Iraq, promote the Arab-Israeli peace process, and combat terrorism.

While I agree with the goals of the Syrian Accountability Act, I am concerned that this legislation will undermine our ability to achieve those goals. In particular, I am opposed to the act's provisions that would mandate the imposition of new sanctions against Syria. I believe that these provisions would tie this or any future administration's hands in a way that will make the conduct of our foreign policy more difficult. A number of sanctions already exist against Syria by virtue of its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In addition, the President already has the authority to impose many of the sanctions set forth in this act. If we are to promote peace in the region and move Syria in a more positive direction, the United States must pursue an approach that is more nuanced and flexible than what is called for in this legislation.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for the good work they have done in crafting this important piece of legislation.

Please do.

I say 5 or 6 minutes.

Fine.

I thank the chairman and also Mr. Levin, the Senator from Michigan, for the good work they have done. I appreciate the hard work that goes into these issues which I will be discussing.

This bill provides important support for the men and women of our Armed Forces who are subject to hostile attack while attempting to bring stability and democracy to the people of Iraq.

While I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, I believe that this Defense authorization bill is very necessary. If I had my way I would have changed some of its provisions, but on balance the Senate negotiators have done a very admirable job of crafting an acceptable compromise on most of the defense issues.

I am, however, quite displeased that the administration insisted on asking for language in this bill exempting the Department of Defense from provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

First of all, the Defense authorization bill is not the proper place to have this debate. Discussions about these landmark environmental laws ought to take place in the broader context in our environmental protection legislation. However we made a good effort at crafting compromise legislation in the Senate bill. I was quite distressed that the House conferees refused to go along with this reasonable approach.

In the 1950s, I was a gunnery officer on the USS McNair, a destroyer that participated in operations off the coast of Lebanon and had participated in actions to train our men in the service.

I retired from the Naval Reserves as a captain. I am a veteran, and I am also an environmentalist. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I understand firsthand that to be effective in the field, our soldiers, marines, pilots, and sailors must have the best possible training. I also understand that our country has an invaluable natural environment that we must protect as best we can.

As part of the 2004 Department of Defense authorization bill, the Department of Defense submitted the Range Readiness Preservation Initiative.

The RPPI created broad statutory exemptions for ``training activities'' of the DOD from five environment and resource laws: the Clean Air Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Endangered Species Act; and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

All of these laws, with the exception of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member.

The EPW Committee held hearings on this proposal, in this Congress and in the 107th Congress, and found that the provisions of this proposal were unnecessary because the DOD had authority for seeking exemptions from these laws for national security reasons under existing law.

In particular, section 7-J of the ESA allows the law's requirements to be waived, at the request of the Secretary of Defense, for national security concerns.

To date, no Secretary of Defense has ever needed to utilize this provision of the ESA. Despite this, the DOD authorization bill reported by the Armed Services Committee contained a provision amending the ESA to provide that an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan prepared by the Department of Defense could take the place of a critical habitat designation on DOD lands.

The Endangered Species Act has dramatically protected the diversity of our Nation's natural environment. Many species, including the bald eagle, the symbol of the United States, simply might not be in existence today other than for the ESA. Each year, since 1999 the annual list of endangered plant and animal species has exceeded 1,200.

The grizzly bear, eastern cougar, bighorn sheep, whooping crane, American crocodile, and five species of sea turtle are some of the more recognizable mammals, birds, and reptiles that are endangered but have been protected and need protection.

The ESA protects these animals and their habitats, and the hundreds of other animal and plant species that are threatened or endangered across the 50 States. This past May, the Senate stood up for the ESA-- the Endangered Species Act--and changed the provision of the DOD authorization bill. We did that. We did our job. A majority of the Senate adopted an amendment to keep a balance between the needs of the Department of the Interior to protect species under the ESA and the Department of Defense's need to give our men and women in uniform the best and most realistic training possible.

The amendment required the Secretary of the Interior to make a written determination that the management activities identified in the INPRM would effectively conserve the species within the lands covered by the plan, and the plan assured that adequate funding would be provided for the management activities.

The day after that vote, the Senate overwhelmingly passed S. 1050, only to have its will overturned in this conference report. Supporters of the ESA exemption in this conference report will argue that the Pentagon's hands are tied when military training comes into contact with critical habitats of endangered species.

This is not the case. As I stated earlier, exemptions exist under current law. In this conference report, the exemption of DOD from the critical habitat designations of the ESA will not allow for case-by- case decisions and will make it give the Pentagon a waiver from endangered species protections, even when more conservation-friendly options may exist.

The ESA provision in this conference report provides no assurance that the INRMP will provide conservation benefits to species.

There is no definition about the kind of benefit that needs to be included in the plan or a requirement that the benefit be in some way equal to a critical habitat designation.

Critical habitat designations are intended to protect habitat, address habitat threats and pave the way for future recovery of the species. None of those requirements are contained in the word benefit. I can only hope that is how the Secretary of the Interior will define benefit in the written determinations required under this new language.

In addition, this conference report weakens the protections for marine

mammals. The conference report provides a weaker definition of ``harassment'' of marine mammals that is the trigger for needing a Marine Mammal Protection Act authorization from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service. This weaker provision is extended beyond military readiness to ``a scientific research activity conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government.'' These activities do not have to be necessary for military readiness.

Also, the requirement under the MMPA that any takings of marine mammals be limited to ``small numbers'' of marine mammals, or limited to a ``specified geographical region'' where similar impacts are to be expected has been removed. Another weakening of protections for species.

My reasons for concern over the degree of DOD sensitivity to environmental dangers has been heightened by my recent work on behalf of Marines and their families from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

Thousands of retired and ex-Marines and their families were exposed to highly contaminated drinking water over 20 years ago for long periods. It is now coming to light that this contamination caused many birth defects and childhood cancers. The extent of this tragedy could have been significantly lessened if the DOD had been more sensitive to environmental concerns.

Therefore, I think it is a mistake to allow the Department of Defense to regulate its own environmental activities.

When an endangered species becomes extinct, it is lost forever. That is a very serious and eternal consequence of poor, shortsighted environmental policy. National security is more tightly tied to environmental security than many in the Pentagon would acknowledge. We cannot afford to try out a bad policy when the consequences are irrevocable.

I am opposed to changing the present requirement that DOD be concerned with both our national security and our environmental health. Because of my deep concern over these provisions, I must vote against this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will get back to the Senator from Virginia on that and provide him the information. I can't articulate it specifically right now, but I will get back to him with that information.

That is correct. That protection was added.

I will get back to you on that.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 250 outstanding Vermonters who served in the 10th Mountain Division during World War II. I want to commend the Vermont Ski Museum for recognizing the significant contributions of these exceptional men by inducting them into the Ski Hall of Fame.

As a fellow veteran who grew up in the era of World War II, I remember President Roosevelt's call for volunteers. It came as no surprise that when the military asked for skiers, trappers, and woodsmen to serve in the 10th Division, many of those who responded to the call of duty were from our own Green Mountain State. For a young boy in Rutland, VT, these men were my heroes.

The 10th Mountain Division distinguished itself in fighting on the island of Kiska in Alaska and in the mountains of Italy. Recently we have been reminded of the effectiveness of these soldiers on skis. At a time when modern weapons and sophisticated technology seemed to overshadow the 10th Division's skills, recent conflicts in Afghanistan and other parts of the world have shown us that much of war boils down to human fortitude and a single man against the elements. Modern warfare has not proven to be more effective than the 10th Mountain Division when it comes to fighting in these extreme elements over rugged terrain. We are coming back to basics, and hopefully military planners will never doubt the necessity of divisions with skills like the 10th as part of our national defense.

After the war, many of the veterans of the 10th Mountain Division came home to leave their mark on the ski industry. Vermont was no exception, and the ski industry has flourished here due in part to the passion these individuals have for skiing. They are indeed members of the Greatest Generation and their selfless contributions are evident throughout our State.

I applaud the Ski Museum for acknowledging your individual sacrifices, your defense of our country and your contributions to skiing. It is a privilege for me to join the many others in honoring each of you. You continue to be my heroes.

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