Floor Statements

Like many of my colleagues, I am a veteran. I have the greatest respect for those who serve this Nation. I served the Naval Reserves for 30 years and was on active duty in the Navy in the 1950s. My ship, the McNair, was the first U.S. military ship to navigate the Suez Canal after the Egyptians took control of the canal in 1955. I am a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW.

Like every Senator, I am concerned about our troops on our military bases in the States and throughout the world. I want them to have every advantage as they prepare for and engage in military conflict.

However, sweeping changes to environmental laws, even with changes that are proposed during the time our country is at war, should be considered by the Environment and Public Works Committee. Our committee is charged with understanding the implications of change in these laws as well as the need for change and to weigh the consequences to public health and the environment.

As our distinguished colleague who chairs the Armed Services Committee observed in a recent hearing in our Committee, these laws have taken years to put in place.

However, Section 322 of S. 1050, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 contains a provision that would change how critical habitat is designated under the Endangered Species Act, a law within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public works Committee.

Section 322 prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from designating critical habitat on any Department of Defense lands that have an integrated natural resources management plan, known as INRMP, prepared under the Sikes Act, if the Secretary determines that the plan addresses special management consideration, or protection.

The INRMP provisions of the Sikes Act were never intended to be a substitute for the Endangered Species Act, but rather a complement to it.

As a complementary conservation measure, INRMP is not subject to the same rigorous implementation requirements as conservation measures taken under the Endangered Species Act, such as being based on the ``best available science.''

INRMPs are often substandard compared to the ESA, and the required INRMP components under the Sikes Act cannot be universally relied upon to accomplish species conservation goals.

In addition, Section 7(j) of the Endangered Species Act already allows the law's requirements to be waived, at the request of the Secretary of Defense, when national security concerns outweigh those of species conservation. To date, no Secretary of Defense has ever utilized this flexibility in the Act. Granting a blanket exemption to the ESA removes the ability for decisions to be made on a case by case basis when national security concerns are real.

After hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee both last year and this year, on this issue and the other DOD proposals within the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee, I do not believe the case has been made to warrant these changes to existing law.

However, the bill before us contains a provision that would substantially change the way critical habitat is protected on Department of Defense lands.

The amendment offered by myself and Senators Lautenberg and Akaka will help to ensure that important protections underlying the Endangered Species Act will not be lost under the integrated natural resource management plans developed under the Sikes Act and this Defense Authorization bill.

The amendment would require that the Secretary of the Interior determine in writing that the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan will effectively conserve the threatened and endangered species covered by the plan and assure that adequate funding is provided for the management activities.

This means that if land is needed for a species and military training, the Secretary of the Interior will review the Defense Department's plan for managing the lands and funding the management activities to make sure that species will be adequately protected.

The Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior have been working together to balance needs of the military for training with the needs of endangered species for survival. This amendment affirms that balance.

It is my hope that the two agencies will continue to work cooperatively and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have no further requests for time. I see my chairman standing. I yield the floor.

About 5 minutes.

Madam President, I would like to talk just a minute about the need for available space for training. I was in the Navy. I was on board a destroyer. I was a gunnery officer. We were involved in wartime activity in Lebanon. Our training and all was for shore-fire bombardment. I understand what is needed and what is necessary, and I know this bill is carefully crafted to ensure there will be adequate space for the types of operations I participated in. I know our military is pretty efficient and there are areas that are designated that they cannot hit. There is always a chance they might, but they can rearrange things to make sure those areas are not in their gun sights. It is not anything that is of great difficulty to do. These are huge areas.

So I think the arrangement we have under this amendment is very reasonable and, from my own experience, quite possible to keep everybody happy. So I disagree with the comments of my chairman.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to reiterate that there is plenty of room for the training. All we ask is to make sure before that training is conducted there are studies done to make sure endangered species can be saved and they can reorient where the training is to accommodate them.

The GAO found the military has presented no evidence that the Endangered Species Act has impaired training. If the DOD needs an exemption from the Endangered Species Act, sections 7(j) and 4(b)(2) provide relief from the designation of critical habitat. The DOD has never sought an exemption under 7(j). How can we say the law needs to be changed when the relief under current law has never been used?

I refer the attention of my colleagues to this quote:

The President has said that he wants the Federal Government

to be held to the same standards of environmental cleanup as

the private sector . . . so, we've [EPA] said you have got to

meet the same standards as the private sector.

That was Christine Todd Whitman on the Dianne Rehm show on May 21, 2003. And quoting again:

I don't believe that there is a training mission anywhere

in the country that is being held up or not taking place

because of the environmental protection regulations.

That is EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman's testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on February 26, 2003.

This is a perfectly reasonable amendment. It will protect and not interfere at all with the training requirements of our Nation. I seriously counter the remarks made recently.

I yield the floor.

I yield to the ranking member of the committee.

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

Mr. President, this amendment accelerates the marriage penalty relief for low-income married couples who claim the earned- income tax credit. This marriage penalty relief was included in the 2001 tax bill but does not become fully effective until 2008. Other marriage penalty relief for the 2001 bill is accelerated as part of the bill under consideration today, but not the EITC marriage penalty relief.

A copy of the Washington Post editorial of today on this issue is on your desk.

The pending Senate bill accelerates the child tax credit for some in this group. But like the House version, it would provide no marriage penalty relief for EITC recipients who can face a particularly deep dip.

Considering that in this situation, and two single parents each with one child, each earning $10,000, if they remain single, each receives about $2,500. If they marry, their total tax benefit falls by more than $1,000.

I urge you to look at the editorial at your desk.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act and the budget resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today, I join my colleagues from the Committee on Environment and Public Works in offering, by request, the Administration's recommended legislation to reauthorize the Nation's surface transportation program. I extend this courtesy, in large measure, out of respect for my long time friend and colleague, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

Norm and I served together, and worked together, for many years in the House. Norm is a leader on transportation, an author of many key aspects of our transportation law.

In the 107th Congress, as Chairman of the Committee, I reached out to Norm as we began our deliberations on reauthorization. He pledged then that U.S.

DOT would work closely with the Congress, and he kept his word. I appreciate his friendship and assistance.

The administration's proposal is a mixed bag. Its greatest strength is its continuity with its predecessors, ISTEA and TEA-21. These are landmarks in public policy, due in no small measure to the efforts and wisdom of Norm, Senator John Chafee, Senator Pat Moynahan and Congressman Bud Shuster. The administration package carries that legacy forward.

Its greatest weakness is its funding levels. The bill sets the right target with its emphasis on safety, but comes up short on the funding to hit that target. It continues programs that have produced better roads and stronger bridges in this country, but then fails to provide the dollars to continue this progress. It does less than is needed to address congestion and not enough to expand freight capacity.

Under Chairman Inhofe's leadership, we have fought for higher funding levels. We will continue that fight. I will not shortchange the Nation. I will not support any legislation that underfunds transportation.

The Administration's bill would modify our approach to environmental protection. My record on clean air, clean water and sound planning is clear and consistent. I want to strengthen our efforts, and will oppose any measure that reduces our vigilance in these areas. Our transportation investments should improve our environment, our air and water quality, should strengthen local economies and enhance our communities.

We will have a robust debate on these matters over the next few months. I look forward to working with my EPW colleagues, with Chairman Young and Mr. Oberstar in the House and with Secretary Mineta to renew our surface transportation program for a strong America.

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, when we passed the last big tax package in 2001, we included in the bill a title called ``Marriage Penalty Relief.''

That title had three sections aimed at easing the burden faced by taxpayers, who find themselves paying higher tax bills after they get married than what they would have paid if they had stayed single.

One of these provisions increased the standard deduction for married taxpayers, so that it would equal twice the amount of the standard deduction allowed single taxpayers, making marriage an advantage.

The second provision increased the size of the 15 percent income tax rate bracket for a married couple to twice the size of the corresponding bracket for a single taxpayer.

The third provision addressed the marriage penalty in earned income tax credit, and provided for a larger credit for married couples. All three of these provisions were phased in gradually, not becoming fully effective until 2008 or 2009.

The bill under consideration today accelerates the scheduled phase-in of two of the three marriage penalty relief provisions we adopted in 2001.

The standard deduction marriage penalty relief is accelerated to 2003. And the expansion of the 15 percent rate bracket for married couples is similarly accelerated to 2003.

There is no acceleration, however, of the marriage penalty relief for taxpayers who claim the earned income tax credit. The earned income tax credit, the EITC, provides an income supplement for low-income workers.

It is one of the Nation's most effective anti-poverty programs. It was the brainchild of the late Senator Russell Long, whose death we sadly recognized yesterday, who characterized it as a ``work bonus'' and Senator Long called it one of his proudest accomplishments.

However, the way the EITC is presently structured can result in high marriage penalties. Two single, low-income workers may be entitled to a much smaller EITC from their combined incomes when they get married than what they would have gotten separately had they stayed single.

Take, for example, a man and a woman, each with an income of $15,000, and each with one child. If they are single, each can claim an EITC benefit of roughly $2,750, a total of $5,500.

However, if they get married and combine their incomes, the EITC that they can claim is only $1,200. This is a marriage penalty of $4,300, 14 percent of their combined income.

Think of a young couple who finds they have an unexpected pregnancy. If they get married, they have to pay an additional $4,300 in taxes. That is not a very good situation.

The 2001 tax bill addresses this problem by increasing the EITC allowed to married low-income taxpayers. But this provision is gradually phased-in and does not become fully effective until 2008. So we have a gap.

My amendment calls for acceleration of the phase-in of the EITC marriage penalty relief. It will benefit working families with incomes between $15,000 and $37,000.

I propose to pay for this amendment by paring back the reduction in the top rate in an amount sufficient to pay for this amendment. This would mean a relatively modest decrease in the reduction in that top rate. We believe it is less than one-quarter of 1 percent.

I have been involved in trying to fix the problems of the marriage penalty since the 1970s, when I co-sponsored the first bill with Congresswomen Millicent Fenwick, who was a pioneer in fighting this problem. I would like to remember her.

If we are going to accelerate marriage penalty relief, we should do it for the poorest of the poor. These people really feet the effects of the marriage penalty.

In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee two years ago, a representative from H. and R. Block, which prepares returns for many low-income taxpayers, expressed the opinion that the EITC marriage penalty had a real detrimental effect on the choices of low-income taxpayers.

In other words, it deters marriage and adversely affects family life.

The EITC marriage penalty relief is also the most effective economic stimulus of any of the marriage penalty relief provisions. It is targeted at low- and middle-income workers, who are most likely to spend any additional funds.

A considerable amount of this bill is targeted to help the very richest taxpayers. Roughly $35 billion goes towards reduction of the top income tax bracket, which doesn't kick in until a couple's income is over $300,000.

Another $80 billion goes toward the exclusion for dividends, which will not affect most taxpayers. In my state of Vermont, about seventy percent of the taxpayers have no dividend income.

My amendment is modest. It costs about $4 billion over several years. We can make room for this amendment in this bill. We should not overlook those who need help the most.

I urge my fellow senators to support this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will vote today to provide advice and consent to the ratification of the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, approving accession to the treaty by Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

While I will vote for this resolution of ratification, I do so with deep concerns over the future of NATO and its ability to serve as an effective military alliance. Five years ago, I voted against expanding NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. I did so, in part, because of a belief that there was no logical end point once NATO began to expand. I was worried at that time that an expanded NATO would become unwieldy and lose focus on its primary mission as a defensive military alliance. Those fears continue today, magnified by the realities associated with seven additional members. However, having decided in 1998 to admit Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, there is little reason for the United States to reject the current round of NATO aspirants. Based on the logic of this latest round of expansion, I assume that this trend will continue, and that new members will be added in coming years as they meet NATO criteria, with the ultimate composition of the alliance becoming extremely diverse.

I am greatly concerned that the inclusion of 10 new NATO members over the past 5 years demonstrates that the United States and its original NATO Allies are wavering from the original purpose of the alliance. Throughout the cold war, the alliance presented a unified front, functioning as an efficient, credible deterrent to aggression. With the radical expansion of alliance membership by over 50 percent since 1998, the alliance has jeopardized its ability to act decisively in times of crisis. I am concerned that the alliance has expanded to the point of becoming inefficient and unwieldy. It runs the risk that divergent views will lead to paralysis or, worse yet, irrelevance when action is required.

The United States and Europe already have the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to handle concerns related to promoting security in Europe, and there are several other organizations directed toward trade and the resolution of other political issues. I am concerned that an expanded NATO will be more suitable for discussion than action, and history has unfortunately shown that action is sometimes required. I continue to believe that the original decision in 1998 to expand NATO was a mistake, but reluctantly agree to accession by these seven countries.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong opposition to the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

During my time in Congress, I have worked hard to ensure equal rights for all Americans. Over the last three decades we have made great strides in ensuring equal rights for disabled Americans, older Americans, and other individuals. The confirmation of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will set back our progress if he is allowed to continue his work of eroding the coverage of civil rights laws passed by Congress, not just as an attorney, but as a Federal judge.

Let me provide my colleagues a quick review of Mr. Sutton's record and its impact on equal rights for all Americans. In University of Alabama v. Garrett, State workers lost their right to bring damage suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Kimel v. Florida, State workers lost the right to bring damage suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In Alexander v. Sandoval, all Americans lost the ability to file a private right of action to enforce the disparate impact regulations of title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In fact, the Sandoval rationale has been applied to say that individuals who are fired or demoted because they complain about gender inequities in a school's sports or education program cannot bring a challenge under title IX.

Unfortunately, for all Americans interested in equal rights, the examples above have already occurred. Other arguments Mr. Sutton has made will provide my colleagues and all Americans a look ahead to the further erosion of equal rights if Mr. Sutton is confirmed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Sutton has argued that advocates for low-income children should not be allowed to effectively enforce a State's failure to provide them essential health services required by the Medicaid Act, Westside Mothers v. Haveman. Families would not be able to challenge a State's failure to provide notices or hearings when their Medicaid HMOs deny or delay needed treatment if Sutton's theories from Westside Mothers had been accepted. Additionally, parents would not be able to bring a challenge to a State's systemic failure to provide occupational therapy, speech therapy, and other services that help ensure that disabled children receive a free and appropriate public education as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act if Sutton's theories in Westside

Mothers had been accepted. Deaf students at State universities would not be able to require schools to provide them with interpreters, captioning, and other assistance as required by title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. if Sutton's additional far-reaching arguments in Garrett had prevailed.

Mr. Sutton's history shows more than just a desire to represent his clients zealously; it shows a belief in a philosophy. This is a philosophy that says the right of the State trumps all, even in the face of extensive Congressional findings. This is a philosophy that says the right of the State overrules the most basic of equal rights laws that the Federal Government may pass. This is a philosophy that the State can discriminate against its employees and citizens even in the face of Federal antidiscrimination laws. This is not a philosophy I can support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Durbin, Reid, and Kerry, the ``Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2003.''

This legislation will guarantee that by the year 2020, twenty percent of our electricity will be produced from renewable energy resources. These resources include wind, biomass, solar, ocean, geothermal and landfill gas.

Again and again, I have heard members come to this floor and say how important renewable energy is to our environment, to our national security, and to our domestic economic stability. I agree. But if we want to achieve these great benefits, we must, as they say, ``put our money where our mouth is.'' It is time to pass realistic, achievable standards to guarantee that renewable energy is produced.

The Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2003 is a very important step in that direction. It will create a renewable portfolio standard or ``RPS'' under which utilities and others who supply electricity to retail consumers will be required to ensure that by the year 2020, twenty percent of our domestic electricity is generated from renewable energy sources. The RPS in this legislation provides a flexible, market-driven system of tradeable credits by which utilities can readily achieve these renewable energy requirements.

Why twenty percent by 2020? Because the U.S. Department of Energy, through its Energy Information Administration, has repeatedly indicated that requiring that twenty percent of our electricity come from renewable energy by the year 2020 will actually lower overall consumer energy costs, while at the same time achieving tremendous environmental benefits.

According to the most recent estimates derived from the Department of Energy, consumer electricity prices under a twenty percent renewable portfolio standard would be largely the same as without one. According to the Department of Energy, retail electricity costs by the year 2020 without an RPS would be 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour. If a 20 percent RPS is in effect, retail electricity costs would be approximately 6.7 cents per kilowatt hour.

However, the Department of Energy studies also indicate that because an RPS creates a more diverse and competitive market for energy supply, overall domestic consumer energy costs will actually decrease by almost nine percent.

Equally important, shifting to greater renewable energy production will have dramatic impacts on human health and the environment. The Department of Energy has found that, as demand for energy grows, without changes to Federal law U.S. carbon emissions will increase forty seven percent above the 1990 level by 2020. However, with a twenty percent renewables standard, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will decrease by more than eighteen percent by 2020.

Electricity production, primarily from burning coal, is the source of an estimated sixty six percent of sulfur oxide, SOx, emissions. These chemicals are the main cause of acid rain, which kills rivers and lakes, and damages crops and buildings. Burning fossil fuels to produce electricity also emits nitrogen oxides, NOx, which cause health-damaging smog. Ground-level ozone caused by nitrogen oxide contributes to asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory problems.

Electricity produced from nuclear power, while not responsible for the emissions associated with burning of fossil fuels, results in highly toxic, and essentially permanent wastes for which no complete disposal option currently exists.

Switching to renewable resources virtually eliminates these concerns. The Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2003 will help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and particulate matter, without creation of toxic wastes.

The twenty percent RPS established in this legislation will also create thousands of new, high quality jobs and bring significant new investment to rural communities. It will create an estimated $80 million in new capitol investment, and result in more than $5 billion in new property tax revenues.

It will bring increased diversity to our energy sector, creating greater market stability and reducing the price spikes that so often plague our domestic natural gas markets.

Greater diversity also reduces the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure to terrorist threats.

In a letter to Congress shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, several national security experts endorsed congressional passage of an RPS. The letter, signed by former CIA director James Woolsey; former National Security Advisor to President Reagan, Robert McFarlane; and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Thomas Moorer, stated that a strong RPS is an important component of addressing the significant challenges to America's new energy security.

Rapidly increasing the production of renewable energy is vital to America's future. We must be willing to take the steps necessary to make that happen. The Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2003 is an essential part of that goal and I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Durbin, Reid, and Kerry, the ``Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2003.''

This legislation will guarantee that by the year 2020, twenty percent of our electricity will be produced from renewable energy resources. These resources include wind, biomass, solar, ocean, geothermal and landfill gas.

Again and again, I have heard members come to this floor and say how important renewable energy is to our environment, to our national security, and to our domestic economic stability. I agree. But if we want to achieve these great benefits, we must, as they say, ``put our money where our mouth is.'' It is time to pass realistic, achievable standards to guarantee that renewable energy is produced.

The Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2003 is a very important step in that direction. It will create a renewable portfolio standard or ``RPS'' under which utilities and others who supply electricity to retail consumers will be required to ensure that by the year 2020, twenty percent of our domestic electricity is generated from renewable energy sources. The RPS in this legislation provides a flexible, market-driven system of tradeable credits by which utilities can readily achieve these renewable energy requirements.

Why twenty percent by 2020? Because the U.S. Department of Energy, through its Energy Information Administration, has repeatedly indicated that requiring that twenty percent of our electricity come from renewable energy by the year 2020 will actually lower overall consumer energy costs, while at the same time achieving tremendous environmental benefits.

According to the most recent estimates derived from the Department of Energy, consumer electricity prices under a twenty percent renewable portfolio standard would be largely the same as without one. According to the Department of Energy, retail electricity costs by the year 2020 without an RPS would be 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour. If a 20 percent RPS is in effect, retail electricity costs would be approximately 6.7 cents per kilowatt hour.

However, the Department of Energy studies also indicate that because an RPS creates a more diverse and competitive market for energy supply, overall domestic consumer energy costs will actually decrease by almost nine percent.

Equally important, shifting to greater renewable energy production will have dramatic impacts on human health and the environment. The Department of Energy has found that, as demand for energy grows, without changes to Federal law U.S. carbon emissions will increase forty seven percent above the 1990 level by 2020. However, with a twenty percent renewables standard, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will decrease by more than eighteen percent by 2020.

Electricity production, primarily from burning coal, is the source of an estimated sixty six percent of sulfur oxide, SOx, emissions. These chemicals are the main cause of acid rain, which kills rivers and lakes, and damages crops and buildings. Burning fossil fuels to produce electricity also emits nitrogen oxides, NOx, which cause health-damaging smog. Ground-level ozone caused by nitrogen oxide contributes to asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory problems.

Electricity produced from nuclear power, while not responsible for the emissions associated with burning of fossil fuels, results in highly toxic, and essentially permanent wastes for which no complete disposal option currently exists.

Switching to renewable resources virtually eliminates these concerns. The Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2003 will help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and particulate matter, without creation of toxic wastes.

The twenty percent RPS established in this legislation will also create thousands of new, high quality jobs and bring significant new investment to rural communities. It will create an estimated $80 million in new capitol investment, and result in more than $5 billion in new property tax revenues.

It will bring increased diversity to our energy sector, creating greater market stability and reducing the price spikes that so often plague our domestic natural gas markets.

Greater diversity also reduces the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure to terrorist threats.

In a letter to Congress shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, several national security experts endorsed congressional passage of an RPS. The letter, signed by former CIA director James Woolsey; former National Security Advisor to President Reagan, Robert McFarlane; and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Thomas Moorer, stated that a strong RPS is an important component of addressing the significant challenges to America's new energy security.

Rapidly increasing the production of renewable energy is vital to America's future. We must be willing to take the steps necessary to make that happen. The Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2003 is an essential part of that goal and I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I had hoped to be here today to say that the Congress is enacting a blueprint for spending that would improve education, invest in our transportation and water infrastructure, and deal prudently with our ever-increasing projections of budget deficits. Unfortunately, this budget will accomplish none of these goals, and may in fact put this country in dire fiscal straits just as the baby boom generation places new and unprecedented demands on our Social Security and Medicare systems.

Let me begin by saying that I oppose the tax cuts authorized by this budget conference agreement. To call this a conference ``agreement'' is a misnomer; there has been no agreement. In the House, the tax cut allowed under the reconciliation procedure will be $550 billion; in the Senate, $350 billion. If the conferees on the tax bill ultimately agree to a cut larger than the Senate figure, the vote we take on that conference report will be a vote on tax cuts never approved by the Finance Committee or the full Senate.

Perhaps more importantly, this is not the right time for a tax cut. When we passed the 2001 tax cut, we were facing a 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. It made sense to return some of that projected surplus in the form of a tax cut. But things have changed, and changed dramatically. Unless there are dramatic cuts in spending-- which no one realistically expects--we are facing deficits as far as the eye can see. On top of that, we face the unknown costs of the war in Iraq and its aftermath. It is irresponsible to cut taxes under these circumstances.

Perhaps some sort of tax cut could be justified if it stimulated the economy or if it furthered important national interests like education or health care. But the tax cuts being contemplated in this budget will go overwhelmingly to those at the top of the economic ladder--those who are least in need of help. These tax cuts will mean bigger deficits and a higher national debt. The costs for this folly will be borne for years by our children and grandchildren. And areas of national need will get short shrift.

Our Nation's transportation needs get short shrift in this budget.

As ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am very disappointed by the treatment afforded to our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems in the conference report.

Just over a week ago, 79 Senators recognized the importance of our Nation's infrastructure and the vast need for investment by supporting a bipartisan amendment to increase surface transportation spending.

What has come back from conference is a dramatic cut in funding from the levels put forward by the Senate. We agreed in this body to highway program contract authority for reauthorization of $255 billion. The conferees set the level at $231 billion. While presented as a simple ``split-the-difference'' compromise with the House, the conference inserted provisions that will in fact reduce funding to levels only marginally greater than those authorized for TEA-21 and would barely cover inflation during the next six years.

Our highway program expires this year. Traffic congestion is a growing problem and freight needs are expanding rapidly. The States want us to review the program on time. The strength of the Nation's economy and literally hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake.

I foresee great difficulty in enacting a transportation reauthorization bill with the numbers proposed in this budget resolution.

Our environmental programs get short shrift in this budget.

I am most disappointed that conferees refused to agree to the additional $3 billion in funding for the Nation's water infrastructure approved by the Senate. As I said during debate on the Senate floor, the estimates of the current funding gap in the areas of water and wastewater infrastructure are enormous. Accounting for inflation, overall funding for environmental programs will be $770 million below fiscal year 2003 levels. Real cuts in programs that keep our water, land, and air clean will have to be made.

Finally, education gets short shrift in this budget.

Earlier this year, the President emphasized that education and homeland

security are integral to having a secure nation with a well-educated and training workforce that would grow and strengthen our economy.

At a time in our history when we are all focused on homeland security, it must be noted that education should be considered the centerpiece of our homeland security efforts. The best security for a nation is to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to receive a high-quality education, from prekindergarten to elementary and secondary education, to special education, to technical and higher education, and beyond.

The budget resolution before us severely underfunds key education programs. The Title One program, which is the heart of the Federal effort in elementary and secondary education, is $6 billion below the level authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act. The resolution also fails to provide for any increase in the Pell grant maximum award.

By authorizing large tax cuts in the budget conference report, we are severely damaging our education delivery system. This Nation has overwhelming needs in education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The tax cuts in this resolution should have gone to meet these needs.

Mr. President, a budget is a statement of priorities. As is clear from my statements, I will vote against this budget because I believe this budget's priorities are dangerously misguided.

Madam President. I rise today to express my overwhelming support for H.R. 145, a bill to designate the Federal Building located at 29 Broadway in New York City as the ``Ted Weiss Federal Building.'' The building currently houses the offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, as well as some Internal Revenue Service offices and some Federal Bureau of Investigation offices.

Ted Weiss was born in Gava, Hungary, on September 17, 1927. At the age of 11, to escape persecution by the Nazi regime, Ted Weiss and his family took passage on one of the last passenger ships to leave Hamburg, Germany in 1938. The Weiss family settled in the United States, and in 1946, Ted Weiss graduated from Hoffman High School in South Amboy, NJ. Upon his graduation, Ted Weiss joined the United States Army. After one year in the Army, Ted Weiss enrolled at Syracuse University, where he earned a bachelor's degree in 1951 and a law degree in 1952.

Ted Weiss became a naturalized United States citizen and was admitted to the practice of law in 1953. From 1955 to 1959, Ted Weiss served as an Assistant District Attorney for New York City. He also served on the New York City Council from 1962 to 1977. In 1976, Congressman Weiss was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to serve in the 95th Congress, and each of the seven succeeding Congresses.

As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am very pleased to lend my full support for this legislation. Ted Weiss was a valued member of the House of Representatives and a good friend to many. For many years, Ted and I worked together as co-chairs of the Congressional Arts Caucus. Ted was tireless in his support for the arts and recognized the value of making the arts accessible to all Americans. The naming of the Federal Building at 29 Broadway is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to public service and the betterment of our nation. Ted Weiss was an American hero, and he is dearly missed here in the halls of Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today with great pride and enthusiasm

to submit a Senate resolution commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the founding of the Vietnam Veterans of America. The resolution also points out that April marks the 23rd Anniversary of the founding of Vietnam Veterans of America's first local chapter in my hometown of Rutland,

I would like to briefly discuss one of the provisions in the CARE Act, an incentive that will encourage the conservation of environmentally sensitive land. This conservation incentive will allow landowners who own environmentally sensitive land to exclude part of the gain they realize if they sell their land to conservation organizations for the purpose of conservation.

We are losing our farms, ranches, and open spaces at an alarming rate. Many landowners would like to transfer their land to a conservation organization that would conserve it or preserve its original use. For many of them, however, donating land to a conservation organization is not an option. Their land is an important asset, the sale of which will yield an important source of income.

The CARE Act creates a new tax incentive for these ``land rich/cash poor'' taxpayers who cannot take advantage of the current law's charitable deduction. This new incentive is an exclusion from income for one-fourth of the gain that taxpayers realize upon a sale of land, when the land is sold for conservation purposes, to a conservation organization. The exclusion will also be available for a transfer of a partial interest, such as a conservation easement. With this provision, landowners would pay less tax when they transfer land for conservation purposes.

I first introduced a bill similar to the CARE Act provision in the 106th Congress. In 2000, both Presidential candidates endorsed this approach. This year, and in the previous 2 years, a provision like the conservation exclusion in the CARE Act has been included in the President's budget proposals. It has also been endorsed by a diverse range of interest groups, including the Farm Bureau, Ducks Unlimited, the Land Trust Alliance, the American Farmland Trust, and the Nature Conservancy.

My bill--and President Bush's budget proposals--called for a 50- percent exclusion. If, as I believe, this tax incentive proves to be an effective way to encourage conservation, I hope that we will someday be able to increase the exclusion. This new tax incentive will mean more conservation with no new appropriations, and no new restrictions on land use. It adopts a new, market-based approach to conservation, using funds that have either been privately raised or set aside by State and local governments.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Drs. John and Sara Burchard of Burlington, VT as this year's joint recipients of the Kids on the Block--Vermont ``Puppets' Choice Award.'' This award is conferred annually by Kids on the Block--Vermont, a theatrical troupe, part of a national organization, which performs with puppets to deliver messages of personal safety, diversity, and acceptance of disabilities. As honorees, John and Sara are acknowledged for their outstanding contributions to children and families statewide.

Since their arrival in Vermont in 1970, John and Sara, both long-time professors of psychology at the University of Vermont, have worked tirelessly to improve children's care and families' strength. Describing their contributions as ``outstanding'' is an understatement. Professionally and personally, John and Sara have passionately dedicated themselves to making Vermont's communities better.

John's academic and professional life has focused on children who suffer from emotional and behavioral problems, for whom he has helped develop new methods of care. One example of John's innovation is the ``wrap-around'' approach, bringing care and services to the families, rather than relying on clinics. John also served on the Burlington School Commission and, during the late Richard Snelling's terms as Governor, as Commissioner of the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

Sara's specialty lies with children and adults with developmental disabilities. Sara was an important voice of

reason when she led efforts to enable Vermont to become the first state to close its institutions for the mentally retarded. Helping those with disabilities receive the care they need and deserve has been Sara's calling, and her efforts have been nationally recognized for excellence.

As professors, John and Sara have taught and mentored generations of students who have become compassionate and effective leaders who work with and advocate for the developmentally disabled, children, and their families. Their influence extends will beyond their classrooms and their State, making people's lives healthier and more productive.

Again, I wish Drs. John and Sara Burchard congratulations and my sincerest best wishes. Their tireless work is helping to make Vermont the kind of place that Vermonters are proud to call home.

Mr. President, reluctantly, I am voting for this supplemental appropriations bill to provide funding for homeland defense and our military campaign in Iraq. Like it or not, the war is on and we owe it to our men and women in uniform to provide them with the resources necessary to bring the war to a rapid and successful conclusion.

We have known for more than a decade that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, but there has been little concern that these weapons pose a direct threat to the United States. Since coming to office, this administration has raised the specter that Iraq also has been developing nuclear weapons capable of causing great harm to the United States. It has focused a great deal of America's intelligence assets on the question of Saddam's capabilities, yet the administration has not presented any evidence of an active nuclear program. In fact, one of the key pieces of evidence provided to the United Nations by the administration turned out to be a forged document. Moreover, International Atomic Energy Agency experts rejected the administration's assertion that the aluminum tubing in Iraq's possession was evidence of a nuclear program. Two months of intrusive inspections by U.N. inspectors turned up no additional evidence of new Iraqi possession or production of weapons of mass destruction. In the end, the administration has failed to demonstrate that possession of such weapons by Iraq would pose an imminent threat to the United States.

My concerns with the administration's course of action are long- standing and public. I voted against the resolution to give the President the authority to go to war because I did not believe that the threat posed by Iraq was imminent. I do not believe that the administration should have abandoned the U.N. inspection regime. Its inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and achieving concrete results in actively disarming Saddam's regime. Instead of allowing the inspection process to continue, the administration turned its back on international institutions and relationships built up over many decades and pursued a unilateralist course of action with a narrow coalition of allies.

As we all know, the military campaign in Iraq is now at a critical juncture. With countless examples of Saddam's troops using the Iraqi population as human shields, the prospect of devastating consequences looms with the impending battle for Baghdad. In recognition of this fact, Gen Richard Myers today suggested that the United States military, while consolidating its encirclement of Baghdad, might attempt to isolate Saddam Hussein and cut off his communication with the rest of Iraq without bringing the military campaign into Baghdad. I urge President Bush to use this opportunity to turn to the international community, whether it be the United Nations or the Arab League, or any other suitable or appropriate entity, to make one last effort to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein and his cadre of supporters. Time is fleeting, but I believe we must make this effort prior to exposing American lives, and the lives of untold numbers of innocent Iraqis, to the potential devastation of a door-to-door campaign in the streets and houses of densely populated Baghdad. Accordingly, I call on the administration to hold off for a period of 3 to 4 days on the invasion of Baghdad. During this time, the United States and its military allies could continue building their forces around Baghdad and consolidating control across the rest of Iraq. However, this critical period would provide Saddam Hussein one last opportunity to spare his people the inevitable destruction and loss of life that would result from the siege of Baghdad. Such an initiative also would demonstrate to the international community, particularly to the other nations in the region, America's continued commitment to seeking the removal of Saddam Hussein from power with the least possible loss of civilian life.

President Bush campaigned for President on a pledge that America would be humble in its relations with other countries. However, on issue after issue of critical international importance, the Bush administration has governed in a very different fashion. It rejected the Kyoto Treaty, despite years of negotiation and worldwide agreement on the dangers of global warming. It has refused to join worldwide efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, despite the critical dangers posed by the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Instead of capitalizing on a Russian desire to reach agreement on deep cuts in nuclear weapons, and ensuring that Russian nuclear materials never fell into the hands of America's enemies, the President allowed his distaste for arms control to preclude agreement on real cuts in nuclear weapons. In its place we got the charade called the Moscow Treaty, a treaty that fails to remove even one nuclear warhead from either country's arsenal.

A decade ago, the United States went to war with the United Nations' blessing, a united NATO, and a broad, diverse coalition of nations by its side. Today, the United States is at war without U.N. support, in the face of direct opposition by longtime NATO allies, and with only a smattering of other major nations aligned with it. A decade ago, America's gulf war allies joined in the military action and funded the bulk of the war effort. Today, the administration has been forced to open the vault, offering untold tens of billions of dollars to enlist the support of allies that traditionally have stood by our side. And I am afraid the American people will be left picking up the tab for both the military operation and the rebuilding of Iraq.

I urge the President to take this opportunity to avert more bloodshed and

to involve the international community in the Iraqi end-game and the critically important job of rebuilding the political and economic infrastructure of Iraq.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Lautenberg, Graham of Florida, and Lieberman to introduce the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act. This legislation provides for the safety and security of our Nation's wastewater treatment works by providing needed funds to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement security improvements. In addition, this bill will ensure long-term safety and security by providing funds for researching innovative technologies and enhancing proven vulnerability assessment tools already in use.

Since the terrible events of September 11, we have taken several comprehensive steps to protect our water supplies and infrastructure. I have spoken on the many initiatives taking place on the Committee on Environment and Public Works and at the Environmental Protection Agency to protect our Nation's critical water infrastructure. I am pleased to say that we have made some progress.

EPA worked with State and local governments to expeditiously provide guidance on the protection of drinking water facilities from terrorist attacks. Based on the recommendations of Presidential Decision Directive 63, issued by President Clinton in 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency and its industry partner, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, established a communications system, a water infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, designed to provide real-time threat assessment data to water utilities throughout the Nation.

Last year, Senator Smith and I worked to include the authorization of $160 million for vulnerability assessments at drinking water facilities as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. Despite our hard work during the conference, we were unable to include a provision in that bill for wastewater facilities due to jurisdictional issues in the House.

While these initial efforts are essential, our task is by no means finished. We cannot forget the vital importance of protecting our Nation's wastewater facilities. Everyday we take for granted the hundreds of thousand of miles of

pipes buried underground and the thousands of wastewater treatment works that keep our water clean and safe. Like all our Nation's critical infrastructure, the disruption or destruction of these structures could have a devastating impact on public safety, health, and the economy.

The legislation I am introducing today will take us one step further by authorizing support of ongoing efforts to develop and implement vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans at wastewater facilities.

Using existing tools such as the Sandia Laboratory's vulnerability assessment tool or the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Association's Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool, treatment works will be able to securely identify critical areas of need. With the funds provided by this bill, EPA will also ensure that treatment works remedy areas of concerns. Using the results of the vulnerability assessment, treatment works will develop or revise emergency response plans to minimize damage if an attack were to occur.

This bill authorizes $180 million for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for grants to conduct the vulnerability assessments and implement basic security enhancements. The bill also recognizes the need to address immediate and urgent security needs with a special $20 million authorization over 2004 and 2005.

In my home State of Vermont, we have only three towns of over 25,000 people. The small water facilities serving these communities have been particularly challenged to meet today's new homeland security challenges. Many times, water managers operate the town's water facilities as a part-time job or even as a free service. We must ensure that they are afforded the same consideration under this act as the medium and large facilities. This bill authorizes $15 million for grants to help small communities conduct vulnerability assessments, develop emergency response plans, and address potential threats to the treatment works. It also instructs the Administrator of the EPA to provide guidance to these communities on how to effectively use these security tools.

To ensure the continued development of wastewater security technologies, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act authorizes $15 million for research for 2004 through 2008. It also provides $500,000 to refine vulnerability self-assessment tools already in existence.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and other efforts to enhance the security of our Nation's water infrastructure in the weeks, months, and years to come. We truly have something to protect--clean, safe, fresh water is worth our investment.