Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator Snowe in introducing the ``National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003.''

The waters of the United States continue to face threats from aquatic invasive species. Invasive species take both an economic and an environmental toll. The United States and Canada are spending $14 million a year just to try to control sea lamprey, a species that has invaded Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes. The environmental costs are also staggering. Invasive species usually have high reproductive rates, disperse easily, and can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, making them very difficult to eradicate. They often lack predators in their new environment and out-compete native species for prey or breeding sites.

The legislation we are introducing today will build on programs established over the last decade and focus much of our attention and resources on preventing invasive species from entering our aquatic ecosystems. This legislation establishes a mandatory ballast water management program for the entire country; makes federal funds and resources available for rapid response to the introduction of invasive species and for prevention, control and research.

Increased funding and resources for dispersal barrier projects and research to prevent the interbasin transfer of

organisms is of particular importance in my State of Vermont. We, along with New York, are home to one of this country's most beautiful lakes-- Lake Champlain. However, zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil, water chestnuts, and sea lamprey have invaded Lake Champlain and are having a devastating impact. Like most who visit Lake Champlain, these species want to call it home, but we cannot compromise the health of the lake. Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a dispersal barrier in the Lake Champlain Canal to control the dispersal of invasive species in the lake is another avenue toward preventing further destructive dispersal of these species.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee and in the Senate to move this important legislation forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Veidenheimer, a fellow on my staff, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the day.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Clean Power Act of 2003 along with 19 of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats. That is a fifth of the Senate on record supporting a measure which dramatically reduces emissions of four pollutants coming from power plants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury.

These pollutants create or contribute to smog, soot, acid rain, mercury contamination and global warming. They cause death, disease, ecological degradation, birth defects, and increase the risk of abrupt and unwelcome climate changes.

The nation has made some impressive strides in reducing air pollution since 1990. But there is a lot of unfinished business, a fact confirmed every day by more and ever better science.

Power plants are still the nation's single largest source of air pollution, including greenhouse gases. They are responsible for 60 percent or more of national sulfur dioxide emissions, 25 percent of nitrogen oxides, 40 percent of carbon dioxide, and about 45 tons of mercury annually.

Fine particulate matter coming from power plants, mainly through SOX and NOX emissions, is causing or contributing to the premature deaths of approximately 30,000 people.

More than 130 million people are living in areas with unhealthy air. Ground-level ozone triggers over 6.2 million asthma attacks each summer in the eastern United States alone, and some studies show that it may actually cause asthma. Another 160,000 people are sent to emergency rooms due to smog-induced respiratory illness. Power plants are significant contributors to this air quality degradation, as well as causing major reductions in visibility in our national parks and wild places. The National Park Service posts air quality warning signs for hikers in the Great Smoky Mountains every other day on average during the high ozone season.

Acid rain continues to fall on the Northeast, and the Southeast, damaging sensitive ecosystems and acidifying lakes and streams. In my state of Vermont, the red spruce, the sugar maple, and other species are becoming more and more immune-compromised.

The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation says we must reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 80 percent from current Clean Air Act requirements to begin biological recovery mid-century in the Northeastern U.S. That means bringing emissions way down now, not prolonging the wait for healthy trees and lakes.

Coal-fired power plants emit the bulk of the uncontrolled mercury emissions in the U.S. Mercury is a potent neurotoxic pollutant. It contaminates fish causing fish consumption warnings in 41 States. And mercury puts over 60,000 children at risk of negative developmental effects due to fetal exposure.

Despite our international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels through voluntary means, we have failed. In particular, power sector emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, have increased by more than 25 percent since 1990. This failure increases the risks from global warming.

It is plainly obvious that we must make swift and major reductions in these pollutants for the sake of public health, the environment, and the world's climate. Without quick action, the nation's fleet of fossil power plants will continue to inefficiently belch out millions of tons of harmful pollutants.

The Clean Power Act of 2003 will mainly use the largely successful cap-and-trade system in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to make quick and cost-effective reductions in these pollutants. At the same time, this bill does not abolish or eliminate any of the vital local and regional air quality protection programs in the Clean Air Act. Our bill reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide by 81 percent from 2000. Nitrogen oxides will be reduced by 71 percent from 2000. And carbon dioxide will be capped at 21 percent below 2000 levels. Mercury will be controlled to 90 percent below 1999 levels.

This bill has a hybrid allocation system for distributing the allowances for the three capped and tradable pollutants (NOX, SOX, CO2). Most allocations, about \2/3\, go to households and consumers. The rest go to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other categories. This system rewards cleaner power producers and ensures that the public gets compensated for the polluters' use of the atmosphere.

Our bill is intended to save the lives that are now being lost prematurely to lung disease and other illnesses. We want to continue on the path set in 1990 of reducing acid rain.

We want certainty that mercury will no longer threaten unborn children and the future environment will be safer and cleaner for them when they are grown.

Certainty is a valuable commodity. Industry witnesses have testified that certainty is critical to their investment strategies. Our bill provides a

clear signal on exactly what is expected of pollution sources and when.

I want certainty that the promise of the Clean Air Act will be delivered to all Americans.

At the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have heard many times that technologies are readily available to meet the challenges in our bill. And that these challenges can be met in a cost-effective manner that allows our economy to prosper and improve public health.

We can't afford to slow down progress on achieving better air quality and we must start to make real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The voluntary approach has failed for 12 years now and we must do better.

As Senators may know, when I was Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, we approved a bill nearly identical to the bill that we are introducing today. The only significant difference is that the deadline for compliance with all the pollution caps except mercury have been moved later by one year. Mercury still follows the schedule in the consent decree which requires compliance by 2008.

I look forward to entering into serious discussions with the Administration on signing into law good, comprehensive four-pollutant legislation. However, their actions so far on air quality matters have not fostered an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.

I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the legislation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Clean Power Act of 2003 along with 19 of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats. That is a fifth of the Senate on record supporting a measure which dramatically reduces emissions of four pollutants coming from power plants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury.

These pollutants create or contribute to smog, soot, acid rain, mercury contamination and global warming. They cause death, disease, ecological degradation, birth defects, and increase the risk of abrupt and unwelcome climate changes.

The nation has made some impressive strides in reducing air pollution since 1990. But there is a lot of unfinished business, a fact confirmed every day by more and ever better science.

Power plants are still the nation's single largest source of air pollution, including greenhouse gases. They are responsible for 60 percent or more of national sulfur dioxide emissions, 25 percent of nitrogen oxides, 40 percent of carbon dioxide, and about 45 tons of mercury annually.

Fine particulate matter coming from power plants, mainly through SOX and NOX emissions, is causing or contributing to the premature deaths of approximately 30,000 people.

More than 130 million people are living in areas with unhealthy air. Ground-level ozone triggers over 6.2 million asthma attacks each summer in the eastern United States alone, and some studies show that it may actually cause asthma. Another 160,000 people are sent to emergency rooms due to smog-induced respiratory illness. Power plants are significant contributors to this air quality degradation, as well as causing major reductions in visibility in our national parks and wild places. The National Park Service posts air quality warning signs for hikers in the Great Smoky Mountains every other day on average during the high ozone season.

Acid rain continues to fall on the Northeast, and the Southeast, damaging sensitive ecosystems and acidifying lakes and streams. In my state of Vermont, the red spruce, the sugar maple, and other species are becoming more and more immune-compromised.

The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation says we must reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 80 percent from current Clean Air Act requirements to begin biological recovery mid-century in the Northeastern U.S. That means bringing emissions way down now, not prolonging the wait for healthy trees and lakes.

Coal-fired power plants emit the bulk of the uncontrolled mercury emissions in the U.S. Mercury is a potent neurotoxic pollutant. It contaminates fish causing fish consumption warnings in 41 States. And mercury puts over 60,000 children at risk of negative developmental effects due to fetal exposure.

Despite our international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels through voluntary means, we have failed. In particular, power sector emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, have increased by more than 25 percent since 1990. This failure increases the risks from global warming.

It is plainly obvious that we must make swift and major reductions in these pollutants for the sake of public health, the environment, and the world's climate. Without quick action, the nation's fleet of fossil power plants will continue to inefficiently belch out millions of tons of harmful pollutants.

The Clean Power Act of 2003 will mainly use the largely successful cap-and-trade system in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to make quick and cost-effective reductions in these pollutants. At the same time, this bill does not abolish or eliminate any of the vital local and regional air quality protection programs in the Clean Air Act. Our bill reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide by 81 percent from 2000. Nitrogen oxides will be reduced by 71 percent from 2000. And carbon dioxide will be capped at 21 percent below 2000 levels. Mercury will be controlled to 90 percent below 1999 levels.

This bill has a hybrid allocation system for distributing the allowances for the three capped and tradable pollutants (NOX, SOX, CO2). Most allocations, about \2/3\, go to households and consumers. The rest go to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other categories. This system rewards cleaner power producers and ensures that the public gets compensated for the polluters' use of the atmosphere.

Our bill is intended to save the lives that are now being lost prematurely to lung disease and other illnesses. We want to continue on the path set in 1990 of reducing acid rain.

We want certainty that mercury will no longer threaten unborn children and the future environment will be safer and cleaner for them when they are grown.

Certainty is a valuable commodity. Industry witnesses have testified that certainty is critical to their investment strategies. Our bill provides a

clear signal on exactly what is expected of pollution sources and when.

I want certainty that the promise of the Clean Air Act will be delivered to all Americans.

At the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have heard many times that technologies are readily available to meet the challenges in our bill. And that these challenges can be met in a cost-effective manner that allows our economy to prosper and improve public health.

We can't afford to slow down progress on achieving better air quality and we must start to make real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The voluntary approach has failed for 12 years now and we must do better.

As Senators may know, when I was Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, we approved a bill nearly identical to the bill that we are introducing today. The only significant difference is that the deadline for compliance with all the pollution caps except mercury have been moved later by one year. Mercury still follows the schedule in the consent decree which requires compliance by 2008.

I look forward to entering into serious discussions with the Administration on signing into law good, comprehensive four-pollutant legislation. However, their actions so far on air quality matters have not fostered an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.

I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the legislation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, during his State of the Union speech, President Bush said that he has,

sent to us [Congress] his Clear Skies legislation that

mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants

over the next 15 years.

What he did not say is that the present Clean Air Act, according to EPA, will do a better and faster job of reducing emissions than his proposal. It will do all that without eliminating vital air quality protections as proposed in the President's Clear Skies bill.

What he did not say is that the proposal's timeline does not work with the Clean Air Act's. It stalls and delays present State and general efforts to achieve air quality standards and it also ignores global warming.

Worse yet, the President's proposal would contribute to the premature death of tens of thousands of people who we could otherwise save by full and faithful implementation of the present Clean Air Act. Under his plan, there will be more areas struggling longer to achieve attainment of air quality standards.

In 2001, large power plants were responsible for emissions of 10.6 million tons of sulfur dioxide, SOX and 4.1 million tons of nitrogen oxides, NOX. That is 33 percent and 25 percent less, respectively, from 1990 levels. But that is still far too much pollution going into our air, our lungs and falling onto our land.

These acid rain and smog causing pollutants contribute heavily to premature mortality, asthma and lung disease. They also continue the acidification of ecosystems in New England and elsewhere.

In 2001, EPA advised industry that the Clean Air Act at full implementation would likely require an 80 percent reduction in SOX and a 70 percent reduction in NOX from today's pollution levels. EPA also said that mercury, a potent neurotoxic pollutant, would have to be reduced by 90 percent.

EPA said these reductions would have to occur in 2008 for mercury, 2010 for NOX, and 2012 for SOX. The President's proposal hits none of these marks, and still takes 6 more years to even get close to the necessary reductions.

The proposal falls significantly short of Clean Air Act requirements. Senators can see a comparison outlined in this chart.

The President's proposal also falls short by approximately 1.4 billion tons

of carbon dioxide. That's the amount that should be reduced by the electric utility sector under our treaty commitment to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Clearly, we have failed.

Perhaps these shortfalls are why no Senators cosponsored the President's Clear Skies proposal when it was finally introduced last year. Perhaps the elimination of important State and local air protection authorities kept senators from supporting it.

Whatever the reason, the President's proposal had little or no public support. Yet, since January 20, 2001, the administration has had every opportunity to constructively engage with us and promote his Clear Skies proposal.

But, they did little or nothing. They certainly did not respond in a timely, helpful way to legitimate inquiries on its effects.

Instead, they spent their time figuring out ways to deregulate and to rollback air quality protections under the cloak and shadow of their three-pollutant initiative.

Perhaps now, as the 2004 elections get nearer and the administration as yet has no tangible and positive environmental achievements of its own, we can work together, I urge us to work together to make progress.

But, unless the Administration agrees to cooperate on information sharing and problem solving, we are going to get nowhere even faster. We cannot afford to change and we should not change the Clean Air Act without knowing the likely outcome of our actions.

Let's assume for a moment that we all want the same things. We want to stop acid rain. We want to reduce mercury-related fish contamination and birth defects. We want to start dealing with manmade global warming. Most importantly, we want cleaner, clearer air as soon as we can get it.

We can achieve all those goals in a four-pollutant bill. We can do even better than the Clean Air Act at full implementation if we have the will and the courage. But doing less than the Clean Air Act would provide is simply backsliding.

I will soon be introducing an alternative to the President's proposal with Senators Collins, Lieberman and others. This legislation is a better and much more accurate response to the environmental and public health problems that our Nation faces.

In the coming days and weeks, I will take to the floor to discuss the need for strong legislation.

I will continue my efforts to obtain information that the administration continues to withhold. This regards the legal, public health and environmental effects of their deregulation efforts as well as their three-pollutant approach.

A detailed chronology of correspondence on our New Source Review requests appears in the Record of January 21st.

On Tuesday evening, the EPA Administrator called to tell me the President would speak on the Clear Skies proposal in the State of the Union. She said she hopes we can work together. I don't doubt Governor Whitman's sincerity. But, so far, ``working together'' on environmental policy has been an alien concept for this White House. Instead, they have left Congress, the States, the environmentalists, and the people, in a public relations haze.

Progress will be much easier and swifter if we can really work together honestly and without all the smoke and mirrors. That is the only way to approach these severe public health and environmental problems. That is why a four-pollutant bill is necessary.

I point to the chart and urge people to look at this chart which demonstrates very clearly what would happen if we leave things the way we are or if we put the ``Clear Skies'' in. We are much better off to leave the Clean Air Act where it is than we are to do anything. But we will be producing and bringing forward at a future time our four- pollutant bill, again, which will do even more than the present Clean Air Act and does not degrade or lessen the Clean Air Act.

I urge everyone to be very alert about what is going on in the environmental legislation because it could get better and save lives or it could knock it out.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, a firm commitment to protect public safety and the welfare of wild cats that are increasingly being kept as pets. I am joined by Senator Ensign of Nevada, Senator Wyden of Oregon and Senator Levin of Michigan as original co-sponsors of this legislation.

This bill amends the Lacy Act Amendment of 1981 to bar the interstate and foreign commerce of carnivorous wild cats, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars. The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited species, but would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets.

Current figures estimate that there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the United States. In fact, there are more tigers in captivity in the United States than there are in native habitats throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are kept in zoos, most of these animals are kept as pets, living in cages behind someone's house, in a State that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous animals.

Tigers are not the only animals sought as exotic pets. Today there are more than 1,000 web sites that specialize in the trade of lions, cougars, and leopards to promote them as domestic pets.

Untrained owners are not capable of meeting the needs of these animals. Local veterinarians, animal shelters, and local governments are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing for their proper care. If they are to be kept in captivity, these animals must be cared for by trained professionals who can meet their behavioral, nutrition, and physical needs.

People who live near these animals are also in real danger. These cats are large and powerful animals, capable of injuring or killing innocent people. There are countless stories of many unfortunate and unnecessary incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered public safety. Last year in Lexington, TX, a three-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. In Loxahatchee, FL, a 58 year-old woman was bitten on the head by a 750 pound Siberian-Bengal Tiger being kept as a pet, and in Quitman, AR, four 600 to 800 pound tigers escaped from a ``private safari''. Parents living nearby sat in their front yards with high-powered rifles, guarding their children at play, frightened that the wild tigers might attack them.

This is a balanced approach that preserves the rights of those already regulated by the Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act such as circuses, zoos, and research facilities. This Act specifically targets unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining these wild cats as exotic pets.

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals can be kept as pets. The United States Department of Agriculture states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars, and leopards are dangerous animals . . . Because of these animals' potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an animal that can be friendly and lovable can be very dangerous.''

The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.''

This bill preserves those local regulations already in existence. Full bans are already in place in 12 States and partial bans have been enacted in 7 States. I sincerely hope that grass roots organizations continue to encourage State and local governments to ban the private ownership of exotic cats.

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States, the Funds for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

No one should be endangered by those who cannot properly keep these animals. Exotic cats in captivity should be able to live humanely and healthfully.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to working with our partners in the House to enact the Captive Wildlife Safety Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, a firm commitment to protect public safety and the welfare of wild cats that are increasingly being kept as pets. I am joined by Senator Ensign of Nevada, Senator Wyden of Oregon and Senator Levin of Michigan as original co-sponsors of this legislation.

This bill amends the Lacy Act Amendment of 1981 to bar the interstate and foreign commerce of carnivorous wild cats, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars. The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited species, but would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets.

Current figures estimate that there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the United States. In fact, there are more tigers in captivity in the United States than there are in native habitats throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are kept in zoos, most of these animals are kept as pets, living in cages behind someone's house, in a State that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous animals.

Tigers are not the only animals sought as exotic pets. Today there are more than 1,000 web sites that specialize in the trade of lions, cougars, and leopards to promote them as domestic pets.

Untrained owners are not capable of meeting the needs of these animals. Local veterinarians, animal shelters, and local governments are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing for their proper care. If they are to be kept in captivity, these animals must be cared for by trained professionals who can meet their behavioral, nutrition, and physical needs.

People who live near these animals are also in real danger. These cats are large and powerful animals, capable of injuring or killing innocent people. There are countless stories of many unfortunate and unnecessary incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered public safety. Last year in Lexington, TX, a three-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. In Loxahatchee, FL, a 58 year-old woman was bitten on the head by a 750 pound Siberian-Bengal Tiger being kept as a pet, and in Quitman, AR, four 600 to 800 pound tigers escaped from a ``private safari''. Parents living nearby sat in their front yards with high-powered rifles, guarding their children at play, frightened that the wild tigers might attack them.

This is a balanced approach that preserves the rights of those already regulated by the Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act such as circuses, zoos, and research facilities. This Act specifically targets unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining these wild cats as exotic pets.

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals can be kept as pets. The United States Department of Agriculture states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars, and leopards are dangerous animals . . . Because of these animals' potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an animal that can be friendly and lovable can be very dangerous.''

The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.''

This bill preserves those local regulations already in existence. Full bans are already in place in 12 States and partial bans have been enacted in 7 States. I sincerely hope that grass roots organizations continue to encourage State and local governments to ban the private ownership of exotic cats.

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States, the Funds for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

No one should be endangered by those who cannot properly keep these animals. Exotic cats in captivity should be able to live humanely and healthfully.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to working with our partners in the House to enact the Captive Wildlife Safety Act.

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

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Vermont is proud of the fact that it has provided leadership throughout the centuries, and the Morrill Act did more for expanding the ability of education for our young people to strengthen this Nation than any other action that has been taken since.

I thank the Senator for bringing up the history, especially relative to my own State.

Mr. President, as the President prepares to address the Nation, I hope he will remember that homeland security starts here at home, and that he addresses the critical domestic priorities facing our Nation at this time. Today, very briefly, I want to discuss a few of those priorities.

In last year's State of the Union Address, the President highlighted his and Congress's bipartisan efforts on education. He discussed how education was integral to having a secure Nation with a well-educated and trained workforce that would grow and strengthen our economy.

President Bush said:

Good jobs begin with good schools, and we've made a fine

start.

But you cannot educate our children on the cheap, and I am afraid that is what the President is asking our Nation's educational system to do. Last year's Bush administration budget was the worst education budget in 7 years.

The Bush budget fell $7 billion short of the resources promised in the No Child Left Behind Act, and it cut funding for the legislation's initiatives by $90 million. It also proposed less than half of the Federal commitment to special education. This $11 billion shortfall negatively affects all of our public school students and shifts billions of dollars more to local property taxes.

At the same time, our communities are being forced to make decisions on defraying education budget shortfalls. Some schools are having to cut days off of their years and time off for the students. That is a crisis that should not

happen. Some school districts are considering shortening the school year in order to be able to live within their budget. Some schools no longer have money to hire substitute teachers for the remainder of the school year.

We have a responsibility to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to receive a high-quality education, from prekindergarten to elementary and secondary, to special education, to technical and higher education and beyond. Unfortunately, any gains that have been made in education achievement are currently in jeopardy due to the lack of funds at the local, State, and Federal levels.

There is nothing more important to our Nation's future, to our homeland security, and to our economy than ensuring we have a top-notch educational system that is the envy of the world.

I call on the Bush administration to make education funding and our children's future a higher national priority.

The Environment

Mr. President, I also want to briefly discuss the Bush administration's record on environmental issues.

As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am sorry to report that the Bush administration continues to move us backward instead of forward in our efforts to protect our environment.

Weekly, usually on Friday afternoons, when the press is all asleep, or whatever, the Bush administration stages the below-radar attacks on public health and the environment. The administration ignores the abundant proof of imminent and long-term threats from pollution that endanger our lives and our ecosystems.

Today and every day since the administration took office, approximately 82 people will have died prematurely due to sickness and lung disease caused by fine particulate matter from powerplant pollution, which could and should be prevented.

Today and every day since the administration took office, up to 160 acres of vital wetlands have been converted for development or paved over. Instead of trying to slow the rate of wetlands destruction, the administration is seeking to ease existing wetlands protection.

Today and every day since the administration took office, the Nation adds around 16 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, each year contributing 25 percent of the world's total carbon. This raises the risk and threat of global warming.

Shortly after being sworn in, the President reversed his commitment to control greenhouse gases and has not looked back once. I am afraid the Bush administration's environmental policies have been more focused on protecting the special interests than protecting the air and water and land that we all share.

In closing, on the issues of education funding and the environment, I am afraid our Nation has taken two steps back rather than one step forward. I can only hope that for the good of this Nation we can come together and once again move this Nation in the right direction.

How much time do I have?

I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator for the amendment. It is a crime that we have not been utilizing the Superfund the way it should be utilized. The Senator is putting it back on track. I commend the Senator for his efforts.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Governor Tom Ridge to head the newly created Department of Homeland Security. Although I support his confirmation, I would like to elaborate on my expectation that Governor Ridge will be responsive to Congressional committees as he carries out his duties.

As the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, I have been deeply concerned about the creation of this new department. I voted against the legislation creating the Homeland Security Department in part because of concerns about the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, role in the new organization and its ability to carry out its mission once moved into the Department. The Environment and Public Works Committee, EPW, will continue to have oversight of FEMA within the new department. I fully expect Governor Ridge to answer any and all questions we may have about FEMA's new role in a responsive and timely fashion.

I also expect the Department to act to protect our chemical and nuclear plants from attack and to support legislation such as S. 157, the Chemical Security Act sponsored by Senator Corzine and myself in the 108th Congress, and favorably reported by the EPW Committee in the 107th Congress as S. 1602, and S. 1746, the Nuclear Security Act sponsored by Senator Reid and reported favorably by the EPW Committee in the 107th Congress.

Governor Ridge expressed his concern about these important security issues in testimony before the EPW Committee on July 10, 2002, stating, ``The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our enemies look at some of our economic assets as targets. And clearly, the chemical facilities are one of them.'' The Washington Post published a letter on Sunday, October 6, 2002 from Governor Ridge and Administrator Whitman expressing the commitment of the Bush Administration to reduce the vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist attack. In this letter the Governor stated that voluntary efforts alone are not sufficient to provide the level of assurance Americans deserve. I agree with the Governor and expect his engagement in the development of legislation to address this issue.

As Senator Levin pointed out in Governor Ridge's confirmation hearing before the Government Affairs committee last week, language contained in section 214 of the implementing legislation for the Homeland Security Department could be interpreted to exempt from disclosure any information included in a voluntary submission, including evidence of illegal activity such as hazardous waste dumping. Further information, even if discovered independently of the submission, could not be used in any action against that company. Even a Member of Congress would be prevented from taking any action with that information.

In other words, this language could give substantial legal shelter to companies acting illegally. The potential environmental consequences of this are enormous.

While I note the potential for this interpretation, I do not believe it is the correct interpretation, and I was heartened to hear that Secretary Ridge shares my views on this. In last week's confirmation hearing, he said, ``That certainly wasn't the intent, I'm sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption--to give wrongdoers protection, or to protect illegal activity. And I'll certainly work with you to clarify that language.''

I agree with the Secretary that ambiguities in this language must be clarified to make clear that it is only the physical document being submitted to the Department of Homeland Security that is intended to be protected by this provision. Records generated elsewhere or by other means, even if they contain similar or identical information to that which was submitted to Homeland Security, would not be affected by this provision but would continue to be treated under existing Freedom of Information Act provisions or other applicable law. This allows confidentiality of the information voluntarily submitted to Homeland Security, while still allowing other Government agencies to proceed with their duties under existing law. It also allows the public continued access to information to which it has traditionally been entitled under our public information laws.

I look forward to working with Governor Ridge as he assumes his new post.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Inhofe amendment and for the Edwards amendment. The Inhofe amendment might appear to be a step in the right direction. It demonstrates our legitimate concern that these NSR changes are bad for the environment, bad for public health. It shows that these impacts deserve better study.

Unfortunately, for that one step forward, the Inhofe amendment takes two steps backward. The Inhofe amendment requires a study that should have been completed long before the rules were finalized and certainly before they become effective.

That is the whole point of Executive Order 12866. The Agency should have done a comprehensive cost and benefit analysis of this deregulation, because of the tremendous potential loss in health benefits.

Instead, the Agency issued a warmed over version of its report to the White House energy task force and called it analysis. That report is simply propaganda to justify deregulating vast numbers of major sources of pollution.

These final NSR rules are very different from the reforms proposed by the Clinton administration. The differences warrant longer review and consideration.

Mr. President, we have tried to do that. But this administration has fought us at every turn on this matter. They refuse to share information that is our right to have.

The Inhofe amendment doesn't work. It would bar the door after the horse has already left the barn. We need real public health and air quality information before the rules take effect, not later, after the damage is done.

That damage could be severe. Independent analysis for just a few states--Florida, Virginia and Colorado--suggests that the rules would allow new emissions of thousands of tons annually of smog or acid rain causing pollutants.

There is one final note for Senators to consider--the potentially large increases in pollution from these so-called NSR ``improvements'' will come back to haunt them. Other sources and sectors in nonattainment areas, such as transportation, for instance, will have to make up the difference in emissions that is necessary to achieve air quality standards. It's a zero sum game.

Senators should first vote against the Inhofe amendment and then support the Edwards-Lieberman-Jeffords amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Edwards amendment and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that amendment.

Senators should know that I support making improvements to the New Source Review, NSR, program. I want NSR to fulfill its promise of developing ever better pollution control technology and cleaner air.

We can and should make it easier for owners of pollution sources to get answers from permitting authorities about whether or not NSR applies to their facility. They could benefit from an updated, more consistent and timely process. That's not really in question.

Unfortunately, every reliable sign indicates that EPA's recent final rules are not really improvements to the NSR process at all. Instead, in the name of ``flexibility'' these new rules appear designed to increase air pollution. At a minimum, they will certainly allow it.

EPA claims that there will be an environmental benefit from these rules. However, they have done no credible work to show that that is in fact true. And believe me, we have asked repeatedly and unsuccessfully for the administration's honest assessment of the impact of these rules since May 2001.

For example, the agency promised to deliver to the Environment and Public Works Committee a document log relating to these rules by October 24, 2002.

We hoped to find emissions information in those files, but the agency failed to keep the promise and failed to provide Congress its due. We're still waiting for the log.

I ask unanimous consent that a chart of the Committee's communications on NSR be printed in the Record.

This administration's record in responding to legitimate oversight by Congress has been dismal on this matter. Though the agency will not respond honestly, independent analyses done by Abt Associates for the Environmental Integrity Project demonstrates that these new rules are likely to lead to significant increases in pollution at various types of facilities. These case studies can be found at www.refund.org/eit/docs/abill-mobil.pdf and abtin-nucor2.pdf.

The association of States' air administrators have expressed concerns about these rules and asked that their effective date be deferred until March 2004. Nine Attorneys General, from Vermont and other States, have filed suit against the Agency for violating the Clean Air Act and other statutes through these rules.

These rules allow sources to inflate their emissions baselines, or to be designated as so-called ``clean units'' for a decade or more. That way, even modifications that increase emissions will not trigger NSR and the use of better, more effective pollution controls.

As Assistant Administrator Jeff Holmstead has confirmed to Congress in testimony, these new revisions to major NSR applicability criteria would exclude an estimated 50 percent of sources that might otherwise be subject to major NSR.

An internal EPA memo from June 2001 estimated that the average annual health benefits in terms of avoided mortality from just one small part of the NSR program are, at a minimum, about $400 million annually and up to $3.8 billion.

Now, if we tell 50 percent of those sources that they don't have to worry about triggering NSR, then those health benefits are going to fly out the window along with more pollution. That means more people dying or increased lung disease and sickness.

This is just one small part of the NSR program. EPA steadfastly refuses to analyze the larger, nonattainment NSR program for its benefits.

The administration has conveniently ignored Executive Order 12866 on regulatory review. These revisions are obviously significant under that Order because of its hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in annual health benefits. So, before it goes forward, there must be a thorough and reliable consideration of its benefits and its costs.

That's why I'm supporting this amendment. I'm not a big fan of making environmental policy through the appropriations process, but these rules appear egregious to me.

It's time that we had the National Academy of Sciences review the situation, since the agency and the administration do not respond to Congress or the public. I hope that the Academy can give us a quick and impartial opinion on the impacts of these rules on

public health and the environment. To give them time to do that, the amendment defers the effective date of the rules for about six months.

Mr. President, this administration has a disturbing anti-environment agenda. These NSR changes are just the tip of the iceberg. This group wants to deregulate without considering the public health and environmental effects. That's wrong.

There is no good reason to increase air pollution. Science tells us that time and time again. We have the technology to constantly improve our emission performance. This administration wants to take the whole country backward instead of forward.

I urge Senators to support the amendment.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.017

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, like the Senator from Connecticut, I was here in 1975. This was an unusual year for Republicans. This was the Watergate year, and I was one of the very few who was enabled by the political process to represent the State of Vermont at that time. Because there were so few Republicans at that time, the day I walked on the floor, I ended up being the ranking member on the Select Education Committee which handled this issue in the House. Thus I have a personal understanding of the need and a personal responsibility. Ted Kennedy was on that conference committee with the Senate, Bob Stafford was another one, and John Brademas was the wonderful leader of the Democrats at that time. We struggled over how much money would be needed. We came up with a solution and then agreed the Federal Government ought to come up with 45 percent of the burden that was placed upon the States.

I stand today somewhat sad in the sense we still have not reached that promise or anywhere near it. We are about half of that now. I look at severe cuts that have occurred and the lack of money for the States and see they are imperiled at this point to be able to give not only a good education, as required in the constitutional mandate, to young people with special needs but also of all children because of the dire circumstances we have.

I first thank my good friend, Senator Dodd, for bringing this important amendment to the floor. This amendment is about making sure that all children have an opportunity to learn, and I want to urge my colleagues to support this very critical amendment.

We must recognize that we cannot provide all of our children with the opportunity to achieve unless we support our children with adequate resources. The level of funding for education in this omnibus appropriations bill is unconsicionable.

When I first arrived in Congress in 1975, one of the first legislative initiatives I worked on was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now known as IDEA. We wrote the legislation to ensure that children with disabilities receive the special education and related services they need and deserve. This is expensive.

We also recognized, however, that educating children with disabilities would be very costly, and therefore promised that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the excess cost of educating children with disabilities.

At that time, nearly half of all disabled children, approximately 2 million children, were not receiving a public education. They were not even in school. Another 2 million children were placed in segregated, inadequate classrooms. It was brutal.

Today, IDEA serves approximately 6 million disabled children. IDEA has been very successful in providing the basic constitutional right of an education to our children with disabilities: dropout rates have decreased, graduation rates have increased, and the percentage of college freshmen with a disability has almost tripled.

IDEA has helped individuals with disabilities become independent, wage-earning, tax-paying contributors to this Nation.

The problem, however, is that we have not kept our promise of helping the States pay for the costs of educating children with disabilities. Although Congress has increased IDEA funding in recent years, it has woefully failed to meet its obligation to fully fund IDEA. Until we do that, we will not have done what we promised.

Rather than contributing the 40 percent as promised, currently, we only pay about 17 percent.

I would like to recognize Senators Harkin and Hagel, and, of course Senator Dodd, for their unyielding commitment to our children and to our schools, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to fully fund IDEA.

The underlying appropriations bill only increases IDEA funding by $1 billion. At that rate, we're on course to fully fund IDEA in the year 2035. I know that the children of Vermont, and the children across this country, cannot wait another 32 years.

And yet, as we continue to underfund IDEA, the costs associated with educating children with disabilities continue to rise and absorb increasingly larger portions of school districts' budgets.

For example, in my State of Vermont, the special education costs have increased by 150 percent over the past 10 years, and the Federal underfunding leads to the State and local districts to spend approximately $20 million more from local sources than if Federal funding were provided at the maximum level. I know that these problems are not unique to Vermont; but rather, they are shared by States and school districts across the country.

And now State governments are battling the worst fiscal conditions since World War II. According to the National Governors Association, budget shortfalls will be as high as $50 billion this year and $60 to $70 billion next year. Accordingly, State education budgets throughout the country are facing severe cuts, and schools must take drastic measures just to make ends meet, no less meet the burdensome mandates of the No Child Left Behind law.

This amendment represents a significant step forward providing some relief to our schools, and I emphasize the word ``some.'' We must recognize that we cannot provide all of our children with the opportunity to achieve unless we support our children with adequate resources. We must provide our schools with those desperately needed resources and perhaps then we can ensure that, indeed, not one of our children is left behind. The President has made that promise, but I see nothing in the budget or anywhere else that indicates an attempt to bear that cost our States have shouldered for so long. This amendment brings us that little bit closer to our obligation to America's children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote yes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to support this bipartisan amendment to provide additional funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). At a time when home heating prices are increasing dramatically and temperatures in my home state of Vermont are plunging, we can ill afford cuts in the LIHEAP program.

I have fought for years to make sure that no Vermonter has to choose between heating and other of life's necessities such as putting food on the table or prescription drugs. I am very mindful of the financial strains that low-income Vermonters feel when the weather gets cold.

We must continue to make sure that funding for LIHEAP is a priority of this administration and of the Congress. I am hopeful that LIHEAP will continue to provide a safety net to families and the elderly who are buffeted by high fuel prices, loss of benefits, and sickness.

I am going to close this short statement with this week's forecast from the National Weather Service for Chittenden County. In very stark terms, more than any speech, it demonstrates the need for LIHEAP in Vermont.

Tonight. Mostly clear and bitterly cold. Low 10 to 15 below zero. Northwest wind 10 to 20 mph early tonight. Diminishing to 10 mph late. Wind chills 20 to 25 below zero.

Wednesday. Mostly sunny and continued very cold. High around zero. Northwest wind 10 to 15 mph.

Wednesday night. Increasing clouds. Low 10 below to 20 below.

Thursday. Becoming cloudy with light snow likely in the afternoon. High 5 to 15 above. Chance of snow 60 percent.

Thursday night. Mostly cloudy with a chance of snow showers. Low 5 below to 5 above. Chance of snow 30 percent.

Friday. Partly cloudy. High 10 to 15.

Saturday. Partly cloudy. Low 5 below to 5 above and high in the teens.

Sunday. Cloudy with a chance of snow. Low 5 below to 5 above and high in the lower 20s.

Monday. A chance of snow showers. Otherwise partly cloudy. Low zero to 10 above and high in the lower 20s.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Massachusetts and all the others who have come before us this afternoon supporting this amendment. This amendment supports funding for two significant programs, title I and Pell grants.

I have been in the Congress 30 years now and this is the worst education crisis this Nation has seen in that 30 years. I will go back to some of those that we faced before.

I come from the State of Justin Morrill, a United States Senator who gave America the Land Grant College System. The Land Grant College System opened the doors for college education for every American child, and I am proud of that. I am proud of Vermont's history in education.

I have spent 30 years, as I said, in Congress, and this is the worst education crisis I have seen in that time.

I should have known this was coming because I was the chairman of the education committee when it was introduced. I realized, as we started that it was going to be tough. We gave the tests out and did a model on it and found out every school in America, I think, failed to pass it.

Then I asked them who was going to pay for the cost of the test, to find out how bad you were. They said: Oh, that will be up to the schools. I think I finally won a battle and shamed them into thinking that maybe at least they ought to pay for the tests that were going to prove how bad they were, and they agreed to do that.

Unfortunately, though, now, due to budget cuts at the State, local, and Federal level, those doors we thought we were opening are becoming closed. We have the worst education crisis in this Nation in 60 years.

Pell grants are important avenues toward making higher education available. The amendment before us will increase higher education opportunities for today's students who will be tomorrow's workforce.

The worst crisis we had was at the end of World War II, where thousands of young people came back. I was a

young person at that time. But I know that my neighbors came back and they had been interrupted in their studies in high school. They had been interrupted going to college. So we had a crisis of a magnitude that was even worse than today. Hundreds of thousands of young people came back without any high school education. With huge increases in Federal funds we made at that time, we finally got a sufficient amount of money into the system to allow the creation of junior colleges all over this Nation, and allowed people to get back to try to make up all they had lost.

So we have experiences of how it is to react to crises and that we can react if we have to. Our higher education institutions are the envy of the world. Yet we have so many individuals who graduate high school first in their class and so desperately want a higher education, but the means are not there for them to make that goal a reality. That is a sad situation.

A similar crisis existed in this Nation in the 1960s, when the Sputnik launch came. All of a sudden, we who thought we were the best in the world in science and all found that a Sputnik was raised into the sky by Russia, and we recognized that we were defenseless against that. Our institutions of higher education rallied due to some good strong economic help. They became the best in the world. Federal funds were provided to make that possible.

Instead of being behind the eight ball, we had thousands and thousands of students coming from all over the world to come to our institutions of higher learning, to pass and to be ready to bring this country up to a position where we could hopefully be able to head off attacks by missiles.

But we have slipped again. Our schools are in dire need, and it is perhaps the worst position we have been in since World War II.

Last week we celebrated the 1-week anniversary of No Child Left Behind--the law that is to provide the tools so every child will be able to receive a quality education. In order to accomplish this mission, significant commitments were made to fund K-12 programs authorized under No Child Left Behind. We have yet to see those commitments realized.

In addition, the Federal Government, all 50 States, and cities and towns, are facing budget troubles as well. This is especially true in the area of education--both undergraduate and graduate. For example, some of our school districts are considering 4-day weeks. The Tulsa School District recently announced that it could no longer afford to hire substitute teachers for the remainder of the school year.

Beginning in the late 1940s, and continuing through the 1960s, this Nation decided that education was a top domestic priority. I mentioned earlier what we did at the end of World War II. The passage of the GI bill at that time gave veterans access to higher education. The passage of the Defense Education Act, which concentrated on teacher preparation for math and science, and title I which realized the importance of providing education resources to our children so economically disadvantaged children could also receive a quality education. We gave them an opportunity, and we succeeded in doing what had to be done to get the quality of our education up.

Now we jump back to World War II again and the horrible problems we had in education when hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of young people arrived without the opportunity to have had even a high school education, to say anything about higher education. We found that we had a crisis of great magnitude about which we had to do something. We did. We made the highest increase in educational spending that probably will ever be made because we increased it from 2 percent of the Federal budget to 10 percent of the Federal budget--a huge increase.

It worked. We were able to make sure those young people could flourish and that this country could flourish and that it could be the economic wonder it turned into. But now we are in a similar situation which we need to do something about.

To give you an example of the comparison of what our Federal Government pays for education with the rest of the world, almost all of our economic competitors pay a substantial percentage of the local school money. In Japan and other countries, 40 percent of the money that goes to the local schools comes from their federal government. What is it in the United States? Right now, less than 2 percent--right around 2 percent--of the moneys for local schools comes from the Federal Government. We need to recognize that our schools are having deep financial problems.

We have to, as every other country has, recognize the modern needs and get our share of the education up in the area of 30 to 40 percent for our local schools rather than the meager 7 percent that it is now. That is a big charge and a big challenge for us in the future.

Right now we must correct the problems created by the committee in marking up this particular piece of legislation and make sure we bring it up to a more reasonable and effective amount of funding to make sure that every child will not be left behind, but, even more than that, that every child will have some chance of being able to have the education they need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield me time?

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to restore funding to Amtrak. I just served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and we had a great interest--and still do-- in the health of Amtrak.

Amtrak president, David Gunn, has made clear that failure to adequately fund the railroad will lead to its bankruptcy and liquidation of its assets. This will cost us far more than the dollar value of this amendment. That is unacceptable to my State of Vermont and to the Nation.

Across the Nation, Amtrak carries over 23 million riders a year, or roughly 65,000 riders each day. On holidays and other peak times, Amtrak is the best option for many of our citizens.

An Amtrak bankruptcy will have a devastating effect on employment and the economy. Amtrak alone employs over 23,000 Americans, and roughly 233,000 commuters will find their daily trip to work delayed and disrupted.

In Vermont, as in many rural States, Amtrak is an essential service. My home State provides over $2 million a year to maintain Amtrak service to our towns and villages. If we turn away from Amtrak tonight, Vermonters will surely lose this very vital service.

On September 11, Amtrak kept America moving as our airports were idled. I was chairman of the committee at that time and I know the fear we had that Amtrak would not be able to keep going. We need the redundancy in our transportation system, especially in light of the continuing threats.

Even when it is Mother Nature who comes calling, as in the blizzards on the east coast in recent years, the rail mode makes it through while our highways and airports are buried and stopped.

I have spent the last year examining the state of our Nation's transportation system. The system is hemorrhaging. Our highways and airports are congested and unreliable. We need a viable third choice. Passenger rail is that choice.

The United States stands alone among the world's advanced countries in our neglect of the rail mode. Europe, in particular, has a modern rail system, a key part of its balanced continental transportation network. Europe is developing new and advanced rail technologies and exporting these technologies around the world. I have seen demonstrations of those technologies.

Our Nation's surface and aviation programs are up for renewal during this session of Congress. So is Amtrak. This is the year to shape America's transportation future, and that is a job for Congress, not for the bankruptcy court.

As the ranking member on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I don't want to give away a third of our option--our passenger rail system--before we even begin.

Our choice is clear. We can shortchange Amtrak, throw away its assets, disrupt the economy, and forfeit this unique chance to create a balanced transportation system or we can restore Amtrak funding, preserve our options, and bring our Nation's transportation system into the 21st century.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment.

I yield the floor.