Floor Statements

Mr. President, I stand here to raise some questions and issues of importance.

There are so many difficult problems that Americans must face every day. These include crowded roads, finding adequate and affordable health care, getting a good education for their children, and improving their economic situation.

I believe our constituents want and should expect the Federal Government to do whatever is possible to minimize these burdens with minimal intrusion.

I also believe that Americans want to trust that the government is working to protect them from involuntary risks or dangers that will affect their lives, like defective products, unfair trade practices, and corporate fraud.

Or, perhaps one of the public's greatest expectations about such risks is that the Federal Government will effectively stop pollution that would shorten lives, put people in the hospital or otherwise harm their quality of life or their earning power. Not to speak of cancer or developmental damage that might occur to their families.

It is my duty, as a Senator from Vermont and as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to see that the Federal Government meets the public's expectations. Sadly, it is my duty to say that in this matter the administration has grossly failed those expectations and has betrayed the public's trust.

I am not here to simply be critical. I am here representing those people, those communities, those populations who are sufferring because this administration refuses to acknowledge that air pollution causes illness and death. Actually, maybe they do know this, but they're willing to look the other way at the misguided request of big polluters.

There is a reason we have a Clean Air Act. To protect human health and the environment. I can not imagine any member of Congress or any elected or appointed official that would say that we don't need a Federal Clean Air Act. But this administration is getting close to that point.

I want my colleagues to know that I will be vigilant in pointing out places where this administration is at war with the Clean Air Act. And they are numerous.

I plan to work vigorously to defend the Clean Air Act throughout my tenure in this body. I will not bend on this. I will fight efforts to undermine the act in the energy bill, in appropriations bills, in any venue that members may look for an opportunity.

Mr. President, 32,000 or more people are dying every year due to power plant pollution. This is not a new number. It was first reported in the year 2000 and is based on reliable, peer-reviewed science. That is a crisis by anyone's definition. It is a call to action.

But, instead of taking urgent steps or really any steps at all to control that pollution, this administration has given the dirtiest, oldest power plants a permanent exemption from installing modern controls that would cut millions of tons of pollutants.

Not only will this administration not force these power plants to cut pollution in the future, but they announced earlier this week that they would no longer penalize those power plants and refineries for violating pollution limits in the past.

This reversal is stunning and unprecedented, to my knowledge. Just weeks ago, we were assured that the administration would continue to prosecute polluters who violated Clean Air rules in the past. Now they are saying let's just pretend nothing bad ever happened.

That is like saying, ``Let's pretend that the thousands of lives shortened by increased pollution from those illegal activities don't matter.''

The combined effect of the change in rules and the evisceration of enforcement cripples the Clean Air Act.

This Bush administration is trying to unilaterally reverse the great progress in air quality that we have made due to the bipartisan agreement in the amendments to the act passed in 1990.

I hope and will be working to stop this reversal through the courts or by other actions.

The so-called ``clear skies'' proposal that the Administration has advertised with taxpayer dollars is too little and too late.

It puts off real reductions in smog and acid rain causing pollutants from power plants for many years beyond what the public's health demands.

It puts them off beyond what the Clean Air Act could do right now if

only the Administration had the guts to stand up to the polluters' lobbyists and use the act constructively.

At the same time that the President's proposal defers any real and significant reductions in pollution, it immediately suspends or cuts back on the important parts of the Clean Air Act that work right now to protect local air quality from upwind sources and to push emissions control technology forward.

By the agency's own analysis of clear skies in the year 2020, hundreds of coal-fired units representing tens of thousands of megawatts, will still be operating without modern pollution controls.

This means that people downwind of those plants will continue to suffer in communities across the nation, in 20 or more states like Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, and on.

This just does not make sense. The administration's proposal still leaves many many plants uncontrolled 18 years from now.

It defies the imagination that we won't ask those power plants to use modern controls for a minimum of eighteen years. The technology is available now and it doesn't cost that much.

And yet, this delay in the President's proposal and its suspension of parts of the current Clean Air Act, will result in more than 8,000 people downwind of those plants dying prematurely every year when compared to my bill, the Clean Power Act, or to a vigorous implementation of today's Clean Air Act.

I have been prepared, as I have noted several times over the last 2 years, to work with the administration to work on compromise legislation. My offer has been met with deafening silence.

That is unfortunate for all those whose lives will be shortened, for the additional acid rain that will fall, for the asthmatic children who will suffer, for the increase in global warming, for the smog-blocking scenic vistas, and for the new lakes and fish contaminated by mercury. But that silence is not unusual.

I have come to expect that the administration will not answer straightforward questions or provide simple technical assistance.

And I have come to expect that the administration will not honor the public's or Congress' right to obtain documents and information on vital environmental policy matters.

So it was not a surprise to me that EPA has refused to honor its promise to analyze the impacts of controlling mercury emissions at various levels from powerplants. If they did a decent job, it would show that the Clear Skies proposal is weak and far less effective than today's control technology. Today's control technology--it is even worse than that.

It is also not a surprise to hear rumors that EPA and the utilities are seeking another delay in the legal deadline to control mercury and other air toxics. As it is, this deadline is already many years later than required by the Clean Air Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 5 minutes.

What is surprising is that anyone who has children would consider such a delay. Mercury, much like lead, can cause significant neurological and developmental damage to fetuses when a mother consumes normal quantities of fish. It can also increase the risk of heart, kidney and liver effects in adults. The National Academy of Sciences has documented these risks well. Let me repeat that. The National Academy of Sciences has documented these risks well.

However, in case the mothers and fathers who are considering extending this deadline or proposing ineffectual rules, I have joined with 12 other Senators in sending a letter to the Office of Management and Budget and the EPA. The letter explains their legal and moral duties, in the event that they have been forgotten. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, my inescapable conclusion, unless newly confirmed Administrator Leavitt can change it, is that the Bush administration does not care about the burdens that polluters lay upon the public.

Perhaps the administration does not care about the deathly ill senior citizens suffering from pollution-induced heart or lung disease, or the parents who are struggling to help their learning disabled or physically handicapped child cope with everyday life, or the 150 million Americans who are breathing unhealthy air.

Whatever their reasons, this administration is making it harder to breathe, to see, and to trust.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, November 6, 2003.

Hon. Joshua B. Bolten,

Director, The Office of Management and Budget, Washington,

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

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl for their leadership in crafting the Senate's version of the 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill. I appreciate their willingness to work with me to include $2 million in funding for the Historic Barn Preservation Program. This program was authorized in the 2002 farm bill, but until now has not received any funding.

Our Nation's aging barns are important symbols of our agricultural heritage, and we must see that they remain a part of our landscapes. This program was established to preserve barns that are in danger of falling beyond repair due to decades of deferred maintenance. To qualify, a barn must be at least 50 years old. Preservationists are especially concerned with the oldest barns, many are more than 200 years old and some date back as far as 1790.

Before this program can be successfully implemented. Congress must give it adequate funding. My amendment, which would provide $2 million in funding for the barn preservation program, will address the growing demand for historic preservation in our rural communities by documenting and researching appropriate techniques and best practices for protecting these treasures.

I am not alone in urging funding for the barn preservation program. Last June, I led a bipartisan group of 24 Senators who sent a letter to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies urging that $10 million be included for this program.

The Historic Barn Preservation Program also enjoys support from the preservation community. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has endorsed this program as well as numerous State preservation groups from

across the country. We all recognize that preservation of these barns will not only ensure their survival for generations to come, it will provide practical benefits to the farmers that own them and the communities and economies that surround them.

Clearly, working structures such as these barns have as much to offer to our understanding of U.S. history as the birthplaces of our leaders or battlefields where our soldiers fought and died. These barns have served various functions, whether as military hospitals, refuges for slaves making their way along the Underground Railroad, local school buildings or temporary shelters for families moving west as our country's border expanded to the Pacific Coast.

In my home State of Vermont, the State Historic Preservation Office currently administers a small grant program for barn preservation that has been funded by the Vermont Legislature since 1993. While this program has been very successful, applications continue to significantly outnumber the grants made through this program. For example, out of 60 annual requests, the program only has the resources to fund 15 to 20 of those requests.

Federal funding through the new national Historic Barn Preservation Program will help address the growing backlog of requests for barn preservation grants in Vermont and across the country.

Mr. President, I again thank the two managers of this bill and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 2130

That is correct. The compromise also directs the administration to report to Congress by June 30, 2004, on the outcome of such negotiations.

As do I.

Mr. President, I stand to applaud the efforts of Senators Lieberman and McCain for pushing forward with a sensible and modest plan to address the threat of global warming.

I would prefer that we were debating a bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, but the chairman of the committee has made it clear that he will never act on such legislation. That is unfortunate, since the evidence presented to our committee of jurisdiction is more than sufficient to justify taking prudent actions now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are those who say that climate change is a hoax, a concoction of radical environmentalists and a liberal media. That is simply hogwash or maybe the whitehouse effect. Global warming has been documented by hundreds and hundreds of credible scientific studies, including many world class institutions such as the National Academy of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the International Panel on Climate Change. To ignore and dismiss the threat of climate change to the economy and the environment is like insisting the earth is flat. It flies in the face of reality.

The Climate Stewardship Act uses the same type of efficient cap-and- trade system that Congress established in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions and acid rain.

My bill, S.366, the Clean Power Act, uses that system to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants to 1990 levels. That carbon cap and the cap in the bill before the Senate would stimulate the development of domestic technologies, like gasification and renewables. That would allow our Nation to continue burning coal, but more efficiently, cleanly and safely and with fewer carbon emissions.

Without some kind of carbon cap to drive technology, utilities and investors will continue turning away from

coal and toward natural gas. Without clear action by Congress on this matter, utilities and investors fear the uncertain timing of the inevitable carbon controls that are coming.

I will not go into great detail about the need to act now. Our committee's hearing record is replete with peer-reviewed scientific evidence that demonstrates that need and refutes the Senator from Oklahoma's statements.

But, I would like to note that the average global temperature in September 2003 was the hottest on record, and 1998 and 2002 were the first and second hottest years on record. That should concern us all.

It is urgent that we take action soon. The Senate's decision today will affect the atmosphere and climate for the next 100 years if not longer. Experts have advised us that we and the world must radically change the use of fossil fuels in the next 10 to 15 years or the consequences could be quite severe.

The need for the Senate to move this bill is tremendous. The United States emits approximately 25 percent of the world's carbon pollution. We are responsible for approximately 40 percent of the carbon concentrations now in the atmosphere. We have a moral obligation and an economic opportunity in leading the development of technologies and systems that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This legislation gives businesses and Government a great opportunity to promote solar, wind, fuel cells and other sustainable energy sources as ``the next high tech revolution'' to meet our growing energy needs. It can also stimulate rural communities by making carbon sequestration economically attractive.

Twice now, in the energy bills, the Senate has passed resolutions asking the President to enter into negotiations with all nations to obtain a binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have been ignored. The administration has taken no action to accomplish such a treaty or adopted any policy that will result in real and tangible reductions.

Senators should not take this vote lightly. This is the first time that the Senate will vote to control emissions that cause global warming. Senators can lead now and contribute to sustainable development and job creation or they can hide their heads in the sand and be blamed further for the climate change that is already occurring and for the chaos that warming is likely to bring.

I urge Senators to support the Lieberman-McCain bill.

No objection.

Madam President, I yield the 7 minutes remaining from the time of the Senator from New Jersey to the Senator from California.

I yield the Senator from California 1 additional minute.

I yield time to the Senator from Nevada.

Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of Governor Leavitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I have worked with him in the past on education issues and found him to be insightful and, most importantly, cooperative. That is what I seek from this administration--cooperation. My support for Governor Leavitt brings with it the renewed call for cooperation from this administration on outstanding information requests that I have on important environmental issues impacting the health of our citizens and our environment. I will continue to pursue these requests with Governor Leavitt when he becomes Administrator of the EPA.

This vote should not be seen as an endorsement of the Bush administration's environmental policy but a vote in support of a fine and honorable man who has an extremely difficult job ahead. I look forward to working with him to improve the environmental protection that our country deserves.

Madam President, it has surprised me to hear some Senators use the word obstruction in the context of Governor Leavitt's nomination to be the new Administrator of the EPA. It was a surprise because that is exactly what this administration has been doing--obstructing Congress and our legitimate requests for information. Much of the obstruction has been related to the unfortunate and probably illegal activities of the administration on New Source Review and on other important air quality matters such as multi-pollutant legislation.

As Senators may know, the General Accounting Office released a report last week which looked into the effect that the administration's proposed NSR changes would have on pending enforcement actions. That report strongly suggests that administration political appointees were well aware that the proposed changes would negatively affect swift and environmentally protective resolution of those enforcement cases. Yet they proceeded with the changes anyway.

In the course of the GAO investigation, GAO conducted some very interesting interviews that bear on Congress's right of access to agency information. In GAO's February 12, 2003, interview with Bob Fabricant, then-EPA general counsel, the interview notes say, ``Mr. Fabricant mentioned that they were in the process of putting together a confidentially agreement [to provide access to sensitive NSR documents] with the SEPW staff last year but they never completed the agreement.'' When asked by GAO why the agreement was not completed, ``. . . Mr. Fabricant and Mr. Valeri laughed and responded that the agreement was not completed because of the results of the mid-term elections.'' The GAO interview asked, ``. . . why the results of the election should affect GAO and Congress's ability to conduct oversight. Mr. Fabricant did not respond directly to this question but did say that his understanding is that GAO's access to agency documents is governed by the position of the Congressional requestor.''

This new assertion by the agency will come as a very large surprise to Senators on both sides of the aisles, both ranking and chair, particularly for those whose information requests were made while they were chairmen, as I was, and are still unsatisfied. It appears that the Agency and the administration have adopted a posture, which is not defensible by any statute or precedent, that they will just wait for House of Congress to change parties and ignore requests for information that is their duty and responsibility to provide in a timely fashion. I would hope that my colleagues would see the peril in any administration implementing such a cavalier attitude toward the Nation's elected representatives.

The administration has shown an active disrespect for the legislative branch of government which is most disturbing. This pattern is becoming abundantly clear, whether it is vital environmental and public health information or important intelligence and national security data. This is not a healthy situation for reasoned public policy debates or a well-functioning democracy.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Governor Mike Leavitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am supporting his confirmation because we need a leader at the Agency. The EPA needs to be represented during Cabinet meetings and be a strong advocate for a budget that will allow the agency to enforce the environmental protections our citizens deserve. I am very concerned about the morale of the employees at the Agency. They are dedicated to environmental protection. Yet the direction the administration has taken on protecting the environment is troubling.

The record of the Environmental Protection Agency under this administration is abysmal. We have watched this administration roll back environmental law and regulations day after day, week after week, and month after month. They have been dismantling our environmental law and the protections that our citizens have come to expect and, I believe, deserve from their Government.

This administration has allowed the sale of properties contaminated with PCBs, exposing our citizens to highly toxic chemicals. The administration has limited a State's decision for allowing offshore oil drilling on its own coastline. This administration has allowed the fund that pays for cleaning up abandoned toxic Superfund sites across this country to go bankrupt. This administration has omitted an entire section on climate change from a White House report on the state of the Nation's environment, despite convincing evidence to the contrary. This administration has decided not to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

This administration has forced the Environmental Protection Agency to ``add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones'' relating to air quality standards surrounding the Ground Zero site following the September 11 attacks.

This administration has proposed rules that would narrow the waters protected over the last 30 years under the Clean Water Act. This administration has allowed major polluters to avoid installing modern control equipment in the New Source Review rule, devastating years of progress under the Clean Air Act. This is a life-threatening decision.

Many of these decisions have been made with little input from the people who will be most affected by them and must implement them.

As ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I and other members of our committee have oversight responsibility for the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet I do not believe we can carry out that responsibility without the cooperation of the administration and I, for one, have not received that cooperation. I have made repeated requests of the EPA to provide information and have not received it.

For example, I have asked for the analysis of the effects that the New Source Review rules will have on the environmental and public health. I have not received it, and the EPA will not collect information to answer my questions. The lack of transparency in this administration's decisionmaking and lack of cooperation with Congress troubles me. This is particularly true in the case of the New Source Review. According to a new GAO report, it appears that administration officials have misled Congress and intentionally undermined ongoing enforcement cases. I am hopeful that Governor Leavitt will have much more luck than Governor Whitman did with the White House. EPA needs to be an independent

agency, as Congress and President Nixon intended. It cannot be a rubber stamp for the polluters' lobbyists and should not be a political lapdog for the White House.

I am hopeful Governor Leavitt can make an improvement in White House environmental policies because I find it terribly hard to believe that the President would want to continue diminishing his father's environmental legacy.

However, it is not an auspicious sign that the Senate takes up the Governor's nomination on the very day that the Bush administration has formally committed the single greatest rollback on clean air since there has been a Federal Clean Air Act. I am referring to the final NSR rule being published today that allows the dirtiest, oldest powerplants to continue polluting forever. This is a life-and-death matter, a serious health matter.

I hope against hope that by supporting Governor Leavitt we might bring some accountability and rationality to this White House, and he can improve its environmental record. But more and more, I think an election will be necessary before we can see real and positive change on the environment at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Florida be given 15 minutes of my time.

I yield the Senator 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Florida for bringing the real world into our discussion here and letting the country and all of us recognize the tremendous problems that exist. His are some of the most astounding problems we have, but they are throughout the country.

If we don't do something, the lives of thousands of people are going to be affected; they are going to end up being dead or very ill. So that is what we are talking about today. It is incredibly important to find a solution, and I thank the Senator for his contribution.

I yield the Senator from Illinois 10 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New York as much time as she may consume, up to the max.

Mr. President, today the Bush Administration took direct aim against the health of all Americans, but particularly those who are the most vulnerable to air pollution--the elderly, the children, and the poor. As a result of this frenzy to gut the Clean Air Act, millions more of our citizens will now be staring down the barrel of a smokestack.

The administration's new rule on New Source Review adds to all the woes and worries that people must face everyday. These new threats include more illness, lung disease, and heart attacks.

This Bush administration's EPA is not his father's EPA. At almost every turn, this President Bush is seeking to undo the positive environmental legacy of his father, with a particular focus on tearing apart the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

From the beginning, the first President Bush was the motivating force behind passage of that complex, politically balanced and protective act. In fact, it was his acid rain proposal that broke the legislative logjam just before passage. His participation during Senate consideration helped ensure passage from this body, and the technical assistance of his Federal agencies was critical throughout the process.

I was proud to work with the first President Bush and his team. But I am not proud of what the current President Bush has done on the environment. He and his team came to Washington claiming a desire and ability to work across the aisle. But that hasn't turned out to be the case.

This President Bush and his team have intervened in environmental policy throughout the administration on behalf of polluters, not for the health and welfare of the American public and a sustainable environment. This is a huge contrast with the first President Bush who cared about these matters and cooperatively worked with Congress to address environmental problems.

We did not solve all the problems related to air pollution in the 1990 amendments. But, through bipartisan cooperation, we built a strong legal construct and a renewed commitment to gradual and continual reductions in harmful emissions. It has survived legal challenges and until 2001 was working quite effectively from a health and an economic perspective.

That is when the new Bush administration came to town. They have embarked on a comprehensive program to dismantle or slow walk the Clean Air Act, starting with the New Source Review program and extending to the ozone and fine particulate matter standards.

Their Clear Skies proposal is weaker and slower than the existing Clean Air Act, if it were fully and faithfully implemented on schedule. The Bush proposal delays the achievement of air quality standards beyond the act or my bill, the Clean Power Act. In the name of ``flexibility,'' their proposal does away with vital programs designed to protect local and regional air quality, some of which have been particularly important to the Northeast.

Based on the scientific evidence before us, we know that the 1990 amendments did not go far enough in specifically controlling pollutants that cause acid rain, global warming and toxic contamination. However, they did provide the Administrator with ample authority to take action to address these matters. Instead, this administration has chosen the path of delay, non-enforcement, or deregulation.

Government regulation must protect the public's health. But, the administration changed the New Source Review rules while Americans enjoyed the last of their summer vacations to allow greater levels of pollution than currently emitted. Some analyses suggest that as many as 20,000 more premature deaths may occur annually as a result--20,000 deaths. The administration released this terrible news when they thought no one would pay attention.

I have seen charts showing deaths per hundred thousand people who die prematurely from ``grandfathered'' powerplant pollution. These are the powerplants that haven't put on modern controls. These are the same powerplants that will Never be required to clean up to modern standards under the Bush administration's new NSR rule. Never. And it is not just powerplants.

Adding insult to that injury, the administration's new rule is plainly illegal. So I will be joining with other colleagues in Congress, the States, public health and environmental organizations, and other members of the public in litigation to stop this newest assault on our air quality. The States and attorneys general are filing today.

The Clean Air Act says, and I quote: `` . . . any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source'' triggers New Source Review, NSR. That means if a change or modification increases emissions of air pollutants, then the law requires sources to put on modern pollution control technology. It is that simple.

This doesn't mean letting polluters reach back 10 years to pick the highest possible emissions baseline from which EPA would then judge the increase. Common sense and case law says that the regulators must use recent actual emissions levels.

EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air, Jeff Holmstead, admitted the rule will ``in some cases'' allow increases in pollution. That is why it is illegal.

Mr. Holmstead defends this indefensible rule by suggesting that its harm will be limited because sources will not be allowed to exceed their permitted levels while making these modifications. Sadly, that is wrong and its disingenuous. Harm will not be limited, it will be spread downwind of 17,000 plants.

Permitted levels for many sources are substantially above their recent average emissions levels. So sources can now increase their pollution above levels that would have been allowed prior to this rule. That means millions of additional tons of pollutants.

The new rule lets emissions increase at facilities without review. That contradicts the Clean Air Act's statutory language and Congress' intent. Government officials who issue such illegal rules betray the public's trust and commit malfeasance in my book.

Mr. Holmstead told Fox News that, ``We can say categorically that pollution will not increase as a result of this rule.'' The next day on the PBS ``Newshour,'' he agreed that the rule would allow emissions increases in some cases. Which is true?

Mr. Holmstead also had similar trouble giving clear and direct answers to questions during our July 16, 2002, joint hearing between the Judiciary Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee.

He said he was advised by Agency and DOJ enforcment personnel that the proposed NSR changes wouldn't affect the ongoing enforcement actions. The General Accounting Office report and the statements of former Agency enforcement personnel say otherwise. Which is true? We have asked the EPA Inspector General to investigate.

NSR was not designed to encourage emissions increases. Instead, Congress created it to help continually reduce air emissions as sources upgraded their facilities. As they make those improvements, they are supposed to put on modern pollution controls, not be exempt from that duty.

I am afraid that this rule is part of an administration agenda to lock in air pollution increases for a long time to come.

The timing of the rule takes advantage of the gap in the permit process for these plants in the period between the new and old ozone standards.

The permitted levels that Mr. Holmstead mentioned are part of the States' plans to achieve attainment with air quality standards, including the 1-hour ozone standard. That standard will soon be replaced by a more stringent one known as the 8-hour standard. That standard is more protective of public health.

As Mr. Holmstead knows, polluters ``permitted levels'' are closely tied to States' plans to achieve the old 1-hour standard. They are not yet tied to the

new, more stringent 8-hour standard or the new fine particulate standard. The States will revise those plans for the new standards, including adjusting ``permitted'' levels, but that will be done in 2007-2008.

In the meantime, the powerplants and industrial sources exempted by this rule can make huge modifications that increase emissions. These pollution increases will be locked in for many, many years and make it harder to achieve the new air quality standards.

I am not opposed to making the New Source Review program work better through constructive changes. But it is important to know the costs and benefits related to a program before doing radical surgery. An EPA memo estimated that just a small portion of the NSR program may have health benefits worth more than $1.8 billion annually. We can ill afford to throw away all the lives represented by that number.

Beginning in May 2001, I have repeatedly sought, and most often been denied, full information on the public health and environmental impacts of the administration's agenda on New Source Review.

I agreed not to subpoena this information, while chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in exchange for promises that most of it would be forthcoming. Those promises have been broken and I am still waiting.

And Congress is still waiting for EPA to comply with the Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 passed in February. That Act directed EPA to fund a study by the National Academy of Sciences to look at the effects on public health of the other NSR changes made on New Year's Eve last year. After 6 months of delay, EPA authorized the Academy to start.

A recent General Accounting Office report, which I requested, demonstrates that the administration does not collect and has not collected valid, credible information on the New Source Review program.

The Agency has no factual basis to determine that their regulation changes will be beneficial, as they have claimed. Indeed, GAO said that EPA and an electric utility industry group think that post-rule modifications may increase efficiency at some facilities, but will also encourage greater emissions at those same facilities due to expanded production.

The hypocrisy of the Bush administration is stunning. They want to exempt thousands of major sources of pollution from using modern control technology. This is based on flimsy and unsubstantiated anecdotes.

At the same time, they pretend to support ``sound science'' and hide behind the Data Quality Act when choosing not to regulate in the face of abundant proof of potential environmental harm.

This new NSR rule has been a time-consuming waste of taxpayer's dollars. EPA's resources would have been better spent in saving lives by taking some kind of regulatory action, any kind of action, over the last 2\1/2\ years to halt powerplant pollution.

There is real and legitimate authority under the Clean Air Act to do that now. There is even real and legitimate authority to make the New Source Review program work better and more efficiently. But the administration has failed to use that authority correctly and squandered their opportunities.

Using his father's model, this President Bush could have worked with me and my staff and Democrats in Congress to develop a strong tripartisan, multi-pollutant bill to control emissions of sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide. But they have refused requests for technical assistance, evaded legitimate oversight, politicized every possible matter, and avoided any real policy discussions.

They have spent their time ignoring the people's representatives in Congress, pandering to polluters and wishing away the abundant evidence that increasing air pollution causes increases in death, disease and illness.

Pollution is an indiscriminate weapon. It should be emitted only as a last resort. Instead, this Bush administration brandishes it, boasting about flexibility and ``sound science'' while more people die prematurely and the Earth warms. If we were dealing with the first administration, I would breathe easier about the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William Boyd, a minority fellow with the Committee on Environment and Public Works, be granted the privileges of the floor during debate on the Leavitt nomination.

Mr. President, I congratulate The Vermont Standard on its sesquicentennial anniversary. The Vermont Standard is the hometown weekly newspaper of Woodstock, VT, which sits alongside the Ottauquechee River in Windsor County.

Every Thursday, residents of Windsor County can catch up on local sports scores, learn about their students' recent achievements, and read columns written by their neighbors about wildlife, the outdoors, and other community goings-on. Advertisements for area stores and businesses and photographs of neighbors at area events line the pages of the paper's sections. News from each town in the ``Town News'' section is written by people who live in each town and who understand each town. Everybody receives The Vermont Standard and everybody reads it.

The Vermont Standard traces its origins back to April 29, 1853, when owner Louis Pratt, Jr. and editor Dr. Thomas Powers began publishing The Vermont Temperance Standard with the goal of stopping the consumption of alcohol and spreading the ideals of temperance. In January 1857, Wilber P. Davis and Luther O. Greene bought the newspaper, removed the word ``temperance'' from the title, and rededicated its influence through its circulation to the abolition of American slavery. Following Greene's death, the newspaper enjoyed a long line of respected owners, including W. H. Brown, W. H. Moore, Robert H. Matteson, Benton Dryden, Edward J. Bennett, and its current publisher, Phillip Cabot Camp.

As The Vermont Standard and its community celebrate this milestone, a group of local historians have been assembled as advisors during its anniversary. I congratulate the members of this executive board, including Publisher Phillip Camp, General Manager Jon Estey, Editor Kevin Forrest, Howard Coffin, David Donath, Peter Jennison, Corwin Sharp, Kathy Wendling, and Don Wickman.

Madam President, I believe that most Americans are very aware of the human cost of the Iraq war and the significant toll it has taken on the lives and health of many American military personnel. We all have anguished over the casualties and rejoiced in the moments of relief, such as the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Americans, regardless of their views on the war, hung on every bit of news of her recovery, and watched with fascination as she spoke her few but powerful words upon returning home to West Virginia. We just assumed that the cost of her health care and rehabilitation would be covered by the U.S. Government. After all, that is only fair.

The system that is responsible for caring for wounded service members after they are discharged is over-burdened and under-funded. The Veterans Administration health care system has been shortchanged for years, with health care budgets falling well short of inflation. While the Bush administration proposed a slight increase in funding this year, it is still not enough to keep up with inflation. Vietnam Veterans of America has estimated that at expected appropriations levels for this coming fiscal year, the VA health care system is $52 million short of the amount needed to implement existing VA programs and to keep pace with inflation since 1997. Every VA hospital has been forced to do more with less, to continuously reduce costs, year after year, and to limit services to veterans. Long waiting lines have developed at many VA centers, sometimes keeping veterans waiting as much as a year for an initial appointment. Due to inadequate funding, Secretary Principi, a strong advocate for veterans, has been forced to deny an entire category of veterans treatment at VA hospitals.

I compliment my colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, for their efforts to address this funding shortfall. As the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over appropriations for the Veterans Administration, they are well aware of the urgency of the VA's needs. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of their amendment to add $1.3 billion to this legislation specifically for VA health care. In drafting the VA's appropriations bill for the coming fiscal year, they identified this funding as urgently needed by the VA, and it is imperative that this funding be provided in this bill.

Our top priority must be caring for the men and women who answered the President's call and stepped into harm's way. They must be taken care of. If the Federal Government has any obligation to its people, is not its first obligation to care for the wounds of its soldiers?

Every day we hear of more Americans injured in Iraq. I cringe for them and for their families. It is a great burden that most of them will carry all their lives. I also fear that in the years to come, we will learn that the harsh conditions in Iraq today have in more subtle ways damaged the health of our troops stationed there. The burden of studying these problems and caring for these soldiers will fall on the VA health care system.

I, for one, cannot stand by while the VA is starved for resources. This is the time to act. I urge all my colleagues to support the Bond- Mikulski amendment to add $1.3 billion to care for America's veterans.

Mr. President, it is with great frustration that I come here today to address the President's request for an additional $87 billion to pay for the war in Iraq and to confront the aftermath of this conflict.

One year ago, I addressed this body, arguing against the notion that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. I feared that the administration's single-minded obsession with Iraq would cost American lives, poison our relations around the world, divert resources from the real war on terror, and deal a crippling blow to critical domestic needs. I pleaded with the administration to work with the international community to address the Iraqi problem in a cooperative manner. I urged my colleagues not to grant the President a blank check to launch a reckless, unilateral, preemptive attack against Iraq.

Those words fell on deaf ears. The President got his blank check, and we now have to deal with the consequences. While the military campaign in Iraq was predictably swift and effective, the aftermath is a mess. It is now obvious that there was a shameful lack of planning for anything beyond the initial war, leaving us in a much worse position than predicted. Our military is suffering daily losses. The Iraqi population is increasingly restive and hostile. Terrorists are flowing into the region, eager to take a shot at American forces and undermine our reconstruction efforts. Longtime allies are so put off by the administration's arrogant approach to this war that they are reluctant to lend a hand when we, and the people of Iraq, so clearly need the assistance.

Through it all, the administration has refused to give straight answers to the Congress or the American people. It has misrepresented intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq. It has dodged the issue of how much the war and Iraq's reconstruction will cost. And it has refused to provide Congress with a detailed plan for post-war political and economic reconstruction.

Now the President is back before the Congress, asking for what I believe amounts to another blank check. Our economy is in dire straits. Our schools are woefully underfunded. Millions of Americans are seeking work, and many have given up trying. The number of people without health insurance is soaring. This Nation's budget deficit is spiraling out of control, in no small part because of huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans pushed through by this administration. Nevertheless, while the President seeks to reduce funding for pressing needs at home, he urges the Congress to quickly pass his $87 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just like a year ago, we are presented with incomplete plans for how the money will be spent. We have not been provided with detailed information on steps the administration is taking to involve the international community in the reconstruction effort. Moreover, we are treated to blank stares when we seek concrete answers on how much more this occupation and reconstruction will cost and how long our men and women will be stationed on the ground in Iraq.

Ambassador Bremer testified recently concerning the administration's plan for rebuilding Iraq. This plan is striking in its failure to address the most critical issues. It is silent on the size of the U.S. troop commitment, a timetable for the return of U.S. troops, the financial or troop contributions we might expect from other nations, and the short-term and long-term costs associated with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Beyond that, the plan makes assumptions that are so unduly optimistic that they call into question the credibility of other key elements of the plan. For example, the plan assumes that U.S. forces will defeat internal armed threats and deter external aggression and subversion by the end of October. That is 2 weeks from now. Anyone who reads a newspaper or watches TV would have difficulty believing this will happen. This plan seems based upon the notion that merely opening the spigot of taxpayer dollars will ultimately overcome whatever shortcomings may exist in our policies toward Iraq.

We have it in our power to do something about this situation. This Senate must demand answers to these critical questions. It has learned the hard way the consequences of granting this administration a blank check in Iraq. Enough is enough. Additional funding for Iraq should be withheld until the administration develops and presents a comprehensive, credible plan that details how the money will be spent, how

the administration plans to broaden the international involvement in reconstructing Iraq, how much more this operation will cost, and when our military men and women will come home to their families. We owe at least that much to the American people. And we owe it to our brave forces on the ground in Iraq.

As a former officer in the U.S. Navy, I know firsthand the importance of supporting our troops and have great respect and admiration for their efforts. On the whole, American military personnel have done an outstanding job of providing leadership and direction in countless Iraqi communities in the wake of the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. Our officer corps has received widespread praise for their wise and humane conduct in a role for which they received little preparation. I am proud of many Vermonters' unsung acts of bravery, leadership and humanity. RADM Barry Costello of Rutland, VT, served with distinction and played a pivotal role in Operation Iraqi Freedom as the Commander of the U.S.S. Constellation battle group. But Vermont has also suffered great losses. We grieve for Mark Evnin of South Burlington, Eric Halverson of Bennington, Kyle Gilbert of Brattleboro, and Justin Garvey of Proctor, VT. My heart goes out to their families. They are but 4 of over 350 American troops killed since the war began.

We cannot continue to accept such losses. We need to make decisions that will help our troops in the long run. It is our job to ensure that scarce resources are being spent wisely, and it is our responsibility to demand something better than the floundering postwar effort we have seen to date. Writing a blank check for Iraq does a disservice to our military if there is no coherent plan for securing the peace and bringing them home.

Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from the real fight against terrorism, an issue of critical importance to American security. We have reduced our forces in Afghanistan and lost focus in our hunt for Osama bin Laden. As a result, the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan have suffered serious setbacks in recent months. One could even argue that the U.S. invasion of Iraq actually created an opening for terrorists. Osama bin Laden had long targeted Saddam Hussein, whose secularism he loathed. There is no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had any significant connection with al-Qaida, even though the Bush administration has tried hard to link the two. Ironically, in the chaos that has followed the collapse of Baath Party rule, Iraq has now become a haven for terrorists who see an opportunity to strike against U.S. forces.

For over 50 years, America's Presidents have led the world in constructing a web of relationships and institutions that have succeeded in promoting peace, stability, and respect for the rights of each and every human being on the face of this Earth. They worked closely with allies to meet common threats and they supported the United Nations and other world bodies as mechanisms that fit naturally with our goals of promoting freedom, trade and democracy around the world.

This administration has turned its back on the work of the last 50 years. This administration has demonstrated time after time that it has neither the patience nor the will to engage in real consultations with allies and world bodies such as the U.N. President Bush and his administration frequently assert that the attacks of September 11 made the world a different place. Their response has been to abandon long- held American policies and justify radical new approaches like the doctrine of preemptive war. I disagree wholeheartedly with this response. While the attacks of September 11 were a horrific, senseless act of evil, they have not diminished the value of the international structure that America and its allies have worked to build since the close of World War II. The new challenges are different, but now more than ever, they demand a strong and unified international community. They demand more international cooperation, not less.

The United States needs its traditional allies and it needs the U.N. It needs them to ensure that the situation in Iraq does not continue to slide toward an American occupation and to help defray the costs and challenges associated with rebuilding a deeply troubled nation. It needs them to undercut assertions that the primary interest of the United States is in controlling Iraqi oil. Moreover, America needs its allies and the U.N. because we have too many pressing needs at home to continue hemorrhaging money in Iraq.

Having spurned the international community on the way to war in Iraq, the administration must be prepared to go the extra mile to enlist international support at this hour. We must be prepared to cede meaningful control over the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq. And we must do more than adopt the ``join us if you want'' approach the President set forth in his recent speech to the U.N. President Bush is correct when he says that it is in the world's interest to join with us in working toward the reconstruction of Iraq. Our longtime allies and other countries around the world are equally correct, however, when they ask for a measure of control over their efforts. While I am encouraged that the U.N. Security Council stands ready to approve a resolution backing American plans for reconstruction of Iraq, this may be too little too late. Our closest allies still have deep reservations about how we have conducted ourselves thus far in Iraq, and it remains to be seen if any of them will contribute any significant funds or any troops at all. Meanwhile, because of the worsening security situation, the U.N. has been forced to withdraw nearly all of the 600 employees it had in Iraq just a couple months ago. There must be a turn-around in current conditions on the ground before most international relief organizations can do any effective work in most of the country.

We are caught in a real bind. Iraq clearly needs our help. Yet the American economy is hurting and basic domestic needs are crying out for funding. While asking for $87 billion more for the war in Iraq, the President's proposed budget shortchanges his No Child Left Behind initiative by $6.2 billion. Special education will receive less than half of what it is authorized by law to receive. The President has proposed cutting $400 million in afterschool programs, and has undermined efforts to make up for the shortfall in early education funding. Pell grants now cover only 40 percent of the cost of attending a 4-year public college, whereas in 1975 they covered approximately 84 percent of the cost. Our entire Department of Education receives only $53 billion.

The list goes on and on, and it speaks to an administration with misplaced priorities. While the administration seeks $87 billion for Iraq, water quality grants have been reduced by 32 percent, environmental enforcement staff has been cut by 6 percent, and funding for land acquisition and conservation has been reduced by 50 percent. The entire Department of Homeland Security is receiving less than half of what the President seeks in this bill. Meanwhile, our borders are porous, and first responders in our State and local governments are starved of resources. The administration seeks $87 billion for Iraq when there are over 1.1 million Americans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits without finding a job and the President's supporters in Congress have refused to extend their benefits.

Meanwhile, tax cuts weighed heavily in favor of our most wealthy citizens are driving up the deficit and politically well-connected firms such as Halliburton and Bechtel are reaping millions from no-bid contracts handed out by the administration.

Just as the President must live up to his responsibilities, so must the Congress. It has a corresponding responsibility to the American people, and to our military forces, to demand from the administration a credible plan for bringing U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end and for bringing U.S. troops home. The Congress must demand that the administration develop a plan for involving other countries in the process. We must have a credible, detailed plan for turning over political and military control to the Iraqis. And the Congress must demand a credible, detailed projection of the costs associated with our continuing presence in Iraq. Previous administration statements and testimony on these subjects have been markedly lacking in candor.

This is the largest supplemental funding request in my memory. Clearly, our military must have the funding needed to carry out its tasks. I also realize that our own security will be damaged if reconstruction efforts in Iraq are not successful. Yet this is the moment for Congress to demand answers to these critical questions, rather than simply hand the administration another blank check to pursue its policies in Iraq. We must get our efforts on the right track before it is too late.

I am left with no choice but to oppose this bill. Anything less does a disservice to the men and women of our military and to the American public.

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the United States. I am pleased have the Senior Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Washington join me as original cosponsors of this bill.

This past August, nearly 50 million people in the Northeast and Midwest were affected by a massive power outage. Hurricane Isabel and other weather systems left millions more without power. These events emphasize the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages.

Unfortunately, the electricity provisions now being considered in the on-going energy bill conference were written well before these recent events. The pending energy bill fails to do all that is necessary to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. That is why I am introducing this bill today to ensure greater reliability in our electricity delivery system.

My bill, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2003, will help achieve reliability and security of the electricity grid in an efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally sound manner. It does so by creating mandatory, nationwide electric reliability standards.

The bill also mandates regional coordination in the siting of transmission facilities, and provides $10 billion in loan guarantees to finance ``smart grid'' technologies that improve the way the grid transmits power.

While a $10 billion investment may seem to be a large investment, it is significantly less than the transmission cost estimates that have circulated following the Northeast blackout. In response to the events this past August, industry experts estimated that it would cost consumers as much as $100 billion to upgrade transmission systems and site new lines to meet future reliability needs.

However, even this hefty price tag does not factor in the costs of additional generation, does not consider the rising cost of natural gas due to increasing electricity consumption, and does not include the environmental and other social costs of continued expansion of our presently centralized power system. Power lines are expensive and are rarely welcomed by the nearby public. The loan guarantees in the bill will help balance the need for new transmission lines by providing Federal resources to help improve existing ones.

In addition to addressing system operation and transmission needs, the bill also promotes sound system management. It establishes a Federal system benefits fund as a match for State programs.

Historically, regulated electric utility companies have provided a number of energy-related public services beyond simply supplying electricity that benefit the system as a whole. Such services have included bill payment assistance and energy conservation measures for low-income households, energy efficiency programs for residential and business customers, and pilot programs to promote renewable energy resources. More than 20 States, including my home State of Vermont, have public benefits programs. This bill will provide needed Federal matching money to States for these programs.

The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that a Federal program to match existing State public benefits programs would save 1.24 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity over 20 years, and cut consumer energy bills by about $100 billion. My bill, which has the potential to save consumers $100 billion is far preferable to raising consumer electricity bills by the $100 billion to raise money for grid expansion.

The bill also establishes energy efficiency performance standards for utilities. The United States has experienced tremendous growth in electricity consumption over the past decade. Current estimates are that electricity consumption is increasing at roughly two percent per year.

Between 1993 and 1999, U.S. summer peak electricity use alone increased by 95,000 megawatts. This is the equivalent of adding a new, six-State New England to the Nation's electricity demand every fourteen months.

Energy experts estimate that as much as 50 percent of expected new demand over the next 20 years can be met through consumer efficiency and load management programs. Over the past two decades, utility demand-side efficiency programs have avoided the need for more than 100 300-megawatt power plants. However, with the advent of electricity deregulation, utility spending on these efficiency programs has dropped by almost half.

The Federal Government should seek to correct this trend, and this bill takes a strong first step in that direction by phasing in a requirement that utilities reduce their peak demand for power and their customers' power use between 2004 and 2013.

Finally, the bill enacts standards that enable increased on-site, or distributed, generation to reduce pressure on the grid and lessen the impact of a blackout should one occur. We have an obligation to ensure that the electricity grid is secure. We currently have a giant system consisting of almost 200,000 miles of interconnecting lines that constantly shift huge amounts of electricity throughout the country.

Such a giant and complex system, traversing miles of city and countryside, is inevitably subject to unforeseen problems. Simply making it bigger will never take away all uncertainty, nor can it eliminate the vulnerability of the grid to sabotage or terrorist attack. We should do all we can to make certain such vulnerabilities are reduced.

In summary, I am introducing this legislation because I feel that we should be cautious in our assumptions that the answer to our nation's reliability woes lies primarily in building a bigger, more expansive grid. Simply building more transmission lines is not the answer.

Investments in energy efficiency and on-site generation can significantly improve the reliability of the nation's electricity grid and in most cases will be cheaper, faster to implement and more environmentally friendly than large-scale grid expansion. We also must fill the regulatory gaps in the system, which my bill does. Congress should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. In addition, no national reliability program will be effective or complete without strong incentives for demand-side management programs, for efficiency and for on-site generation.

We cannot solve today's energy problems with yesterday's solutions. My bill is an innovative approach to ensuring electric reliability by maximizing energy efficiency, regulatory efficiency, and efficient investment. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we cannot afford to do otherwise.

I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to advance energy security and reliability in the United States.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the United States. I am pleased have the Senior Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Washington join me as original cosponsors of this bill.

This past August, nearly 50 million people in the Northeast and Midwest were affected by a massive power outage. Hurricane Isabel and other weather systems left millions more without power. These events emphasize the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages.

Unfortunately, the electricity provisions now being considered in the on-going energy bill conference were written well before these recent events. The pending energy bill fails to do all that is necessary to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. That is why I am introducing this bill today to ensure greater reliability in our electricity delivery system.

My bill, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2003, will help achieve reliability and security of the electricity grid in an efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally sound manner. It does so by creating mandatory, nationwide electric reliability standards.

The bill also mandates regional coordination in the siting of transmission facilities, and provides $10 billion in loan guarantees to finance ``smart grid'' technologies that improve the way the grid transmits power.

While a $10 billion investment may seem to be a large investment, it is significantly less than the transmission cost estimates that have circulated following the Northeast blackout. In response to the events this past August, industry experts estimated that it would cost consumers as much as $100 billion to upgrade transmission systems and site new lines to meet future reliability needs.

However, even this hefty price tag does not factor in the costs of additional generation, does not consider the rising cost of natural gas due to increasing electricity consumption, and does not include the environmental and other social costs of continued expansion of our presently centralized power system. Power lines are expensive and are rarely welcomed by the nearby public. The loan guarantees in the bill will help balance the need for new transmission lines by providing Federal resources to help improve existing ones.

In addition to addressing system operation and transmission needs, the bill also promotes sound system management. It establishes a Federal system benefits fund as a match for State programs.

Historically, regulated electric utility companies have provided a number of energy-related public services beyond simply supplying electricity that benefit the system as a whole. Such services have included bill payment assistance and energy conservation measures for low-income households, energy efficiency programs for residential and business customers, and pilot programs to promote renewable energy resources. More than 20 States, including my home State of Vermont, have public benefits programs. This bill will provide needed Federal matching money to States for these programs.

The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that a Federal program to match existing State public benefits programs would save 1.24 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity over 20 years, and cut consumer energy bills by about $100 billion. My bill, which has the potential to save consumers $100 billion is far preferable to raising consumer electricity bills by the $100 billion to raise money for grid expansion.

The bill also establishes energy efficiency performance standards for utilities. The United States has experienced tremendous growth in electricity consumption over the past decade. Current estimates are that electricity consumption is increasing at roughly two percent per year.

Between 1993 and 1999, U.S. summer peak electricity use alone increased by 95,000 megawatts. This is the equivalent of adding a new, six-State New England to the Nation's electricity demand every fourteen months.

Energy experts estimate that as much as 50 percent of expected new demand over the next 20 years can be met through consumer efficiency and load management programs. Over the past two decades, utility demand-side efficiency programs have avoided the need for more than 100 300-megawatt power plants. However, with the advent of electricity deregulation, utility spending on these efficiency programs has dropped by almost half.

The Federal Government should seek to correct this trend, and this bill takes a strong first step in that direction by phasing in a requirement that utilities reduce their peak demand for power and their customers' power use between 2004 and 2013.

Finally, the bill enacts standards that enable increased on-site, or distributed, generation to reduce pressure on the grid and lessen the impact of a blackout should one occur. We have an obligation to ensure that the electricity grid is secure. We currently have a giant system consisting of almost 200,000 miles of interconnecting lines that constantly shift huge amounts of electricity throughout the country.

Such a giant and complex system, traversing miles of city and countryside, is inevitably subject to unforeseen problems. Simply making it bigger will never take away all uncertainty, nor can it eliminate the vulnerability of the grid to sabotage or terrorist attack. We should do all we can to make certain such vulnerabilities are reduced.

In summary, I am introducing this legislation because I feel that we should be cautious in our assumptions that the answer to our nation's reliability woes lies primarily in building a bigger, more expansive grid. Simply building more transmission lines is not the answer.

Investments in energy efficiency and on-site generation can significantly improve the reliability of the nation's electricity grid and in most cases will be cheaper, faster to implement and more environmentally friendly than large-scale grid expansion. We also must fill the regulatory gaps in the system, which my bill does. Congress should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. In addition, no national reliability program will be effective or complete without strong incentives for demand-side management programs, for efficiency and for on-site generation.

We cannot solve today's energy problems with yesterday's solutions. My bill is an innovative approach to ensuring electric reliability by maximizing energy efficiency, regulatory efficiency, and efficient investment. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we cannot afford to do otherwise.

I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to advance energy security and reliability in the United States.

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

Mr. President, today's consideration of S. 1053, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, is the result of almost 6 years of effort, so I am especially pleased that we are here today to consider and pass this bipartisan legislation. For the first time, S. 1053 will prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their genetic make-up in both health insurance and employment. This legislation represents a major contribution to civil rights law. It is a victory for consumers, health insurers and health care providers; and it is a victory for employees and employers.

The issue of genetic nondiscrimination has concerned me for many years, and I have been pleased to work with many members of the Senate to craft this legislation. The measure we are considering today is the result of many years of effort and the contributions of many individuals. It is an example of the progress that can be made when the Senate seeks to negotiate and compromise on a bipartisan basis.

Together with the much deserved excitement over the potential of genetic research there have also been long standing concerns that genetic information, in the wrong hands, could be misused. Many people have argued that an individual's genetic information--that might indicate a predisposition to a particular disease--could be used to deny that individual health insurance or employment opportunities. The promise of better health would instead become a potential for greater discrimination and disadvantage. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2003 is designed to address those concerns.

Existing antidiscrimination law has been enacted over the years as a means of correcting long-standing abuses in voter rights, employment, housing and education. But under current law a person who has suffered employment or health insurance discrimination because of their genetic makeup has very little, if any, recourse to legal remedies. This legislation addresses this problem by creating new enforceable rights for individuals similar to those available under existing civil rights, education and fair employment law.

It is important to note that to date, there has not been a pattern or clear prevalence of genetic discrimination. But there is anecdotal evidence that people have refused to take genetic tests because of their fear that the predictive information would lead to discrimination. We know the science is rapidly moving forward and we are learning more every day about the ``predictive'' correlation between genetic markers and certain diseases. It is not difficult to imagine such discrimination occurring in the near future. So in a sense, we can take that rare opportunity to be ahead of the curve and enact legislation to preempt discriminatory practices and prevent them from ever happening.

I believe the compromise legislation we consider today will be successful in preventing abuses in the insuring of health services and employment. However, we must remain vigilant against this type of discrimination from ever

getting a foothold in our society and if this measure proves insufficient and needs to be strengthened then we will be back and that effort will have my support.

There are many Members who have played a significant role in bringing together two different, though similar bills. My friend, Senator Snowe, led one effort in which I was proud to join together with Senators Frist, Enzi, Collins, and Hagel. In another effort, Senator Daschle was joined by Senators Kennedy, Dodd, and Harkin. That measure focused attention on the need for employment provisions and contributed to a better understanding of the many critical and complex definitions. Finally, I want to salute Senator Gregg, who as chairman of the HELP Committee devoted his energies to finding a middle ground that has made this legislation possible.

I am pleased at the willingness both sides have shown to work through the many difficult aspects of this key issue. Through many meetings and discussions we have been able to reach agreements on many important issues, and improve the legislation. I look forward to continuing this cooperative approach as we move to enact this important and landmark initiative and I urge our colleagues in the House to pass it as well. This legislation is supported by the President and it is my hope that we can enact it into law before the end of this Congress. I urge all of our colleagues to vote in its favor.

Mr. President, I rise before the Senate today to join my colleagues Senator Chafee and Senator Bond to introduce legislation to provide funding for storm water control and management. This legislation will ensure that smaller communities required to comply with the storm water phase II regulations will continue to have access to section 319 grant funds under the Clean Water Act.

The storm water phase II regulations went into effect on March 10, 2003. These regulations require that smaller communities required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and implement best management practices to control storm water discharges and prevent water pollution. Existing EPA policy requires that once a community obtains an NPDES permit, it can no longer use section 319, non-point source funding. However, there are no dedicated, alternative funding sources available for storm water management. As smaller communities, like many of those in Vermont, are working hard to implement strong programs to control storm water runoff, it seems counterintuitive to remove one of the main funding sources these communities use for this purpose.

During the 107th Congress, as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I supported Senator Chafee's efforts to put in place a one-year fix to this problem, allowing section 319 funds to be used for storm water controls during fiscal year 2003. This one-year fix passed the EPW Committee, the full Senate, and the full House unanimously. I hope that we have the same level of support during the 108th Congress.

In our efforts to make our nation's water cleaner, non-point sources of pollution remain our next major hurdle. Storm water runoff is one area where we can make an immediate difference in the amount of pollution reaching our waters with an investment in best management practices and control techniques. We need to make more resources available to communities working hard to reduce the impact of storm water runoff on water quality. This legislation is step one of a long list of actions that I believe this Congress should take to make more resources available for storm water management.

Mr. President, I rise before the Senate today to join my colleagues Senator Chafee and Senator Bond to introduce legislation to provide funding for storm water control and management. This legislation will ensure that smaller communities required to comply with the storm water phase II regulations will continue to have access to section 319 grant funds under the Clean Water Act.

The storm water phase II regulations went into effect on March 10, 2003. These regulations require that smaller communities required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and implement best management practices to control storm water discharges and prevent water pollution. Existing EPA policy requires that once a community obtains an NPDES permit, it can no longer use section 319, non-point source funding. However, there are no dedicated, alternative funding sources available for storm water management. As smaller communities, like many of those in Vermont, are working hard to implement strong programs to control storm water runoff, it seems counterintuitive to remove one of the main funding sources these communities use for this purpose.

During the 107th Congress, as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I supported Senator Chafee's efforts to put in place a one-year fix to this problem, allowing section 319 funds to be used for storm water controls during fiscal year 2003. This one-year fix passed the EPW Committee, the full Senate, and the full House unanimously. I hope that we have the same level of support during the 108th Congress.

In our efforts to make our nation's water cleaner, non-point sources of pollution remain our next major hurdle. Storm water runoff is one area where we can make an immediate difference in the amount of pollution reaching our waters with an investment in best management practices and control techniques. We need to make more resources available to communities working hard to reduce the impact of storm water runoff on water quality. This legislation is step one of a long list of actions that I believe this Congress should take to make more resources available for storm water management.