Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am here today to honor my fellow Vermonter, Carolyn Harris, who has spent the last four decades improving the management and implementation of long-term health care.

A nurse by training, Carolyn Harris has worked in the management, administration, and certification of long-term care systems, as well as acting as a care provider. Additionally, through her work with the Vermont association of the American Health Care Association, AHCA, a national health organization representing more than 10,000 long-term care facilities and providers Ms. Harris has trained fellow physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals to provide appropriate and effective long-term care to patients.

Along with the Vermont Health Care Association, VHCA, Ms. Harris has worked for more than 30 years to promote affordable, accessible quality care in Vermont nursing and assisted-living facilities. Her efforts have gone a long way to assure the privacy, rights, dignity, comfort, and well-being of Vermont nursing home residents and to foster a spirit of cooperation and excellence in long-term care. Most remarkably, Ms. Harris continues to provide personal attention and care to her patients while sharing her wisdom, energy, and compassion with her colleagues. Carolyn Harris has met the

challenge of providing long-term health care head on and has become a trusted adviser to long-term care providers and patients throughout Vermont.

Today, at the Helen Porter Nursing Home in Middlebury, VT, Carolyn Harris is being honored by the VHCA and the AHCA for her service to all long-term care recipients and Vermonters. Ms. Harris is a valuable member of the long-term health care community, and I am proud to be able to honor her before the Senate.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2005. This legislation is designed to improve the safety and security of our Nation's wastewater treatment systems.

There are 16,000 wastewater treatment facilities across the United States serving almost 190 million people. Approximately 1,600 facilities are located near large metropolitan areas. These industrial facilities use large quantities of toxic chemicals in their treatment and disinfection processes, and their collection systems run beneath every city and town in America.

A recent Department of Homeland Security planning scenario estimates that a chlorine tank explosion could result in 17,500 deaths, 10,000 severe injuries, and 100,000 hospitalizations. In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on wastewater security which ranks the release of chlorine as the number two security risk after damage to sewer collection systems.

In the past few years alone, fatal accidents involving large quantities of chlorine have reminded us of the highly volatile nature of this popular wastewater disinfection agent. In January 2005, 9 people were killed in South Carolina when a train carrying chlorine gas was involved in a crash. In June 2004, 3 people died when two freight trains collided in Texas and caused a chlorine tank to rupture.

At the very least, wastewater facilities that use chlorine should evaluate how the chemical is stored on site and how to react in the event of a harmful intentional act. The GAO report on wastewater security recommends mandatory vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans as an immediate step towards addressing the security concerns.

The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act takes the essential first step in closing the security gaps that make our wastewater treatment systems vulnerable to terrorist attack. The provisions contained in this bill are the product of four years worth of lessons learned since 9/11, mirroring similar legislative efforts to secure critical infrastructure and minimize potential terrorist targets.

This legislation requires all wastewater facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and to develop or modify site security and emergency response plans to incorporate the results of the vulnerability assessments. Treatment works must certify that alternative approaches, such as using smaller quantities or replacing substances of concern, were considered in their site security plans. It requires that these documents be submitted to EPA for review, and it includes significant security measures to protect this information from unauthorized disclosure.

Additionally, the legislation authorizes $250 million for assistance in completing vulnerability assessments, for immediate security improvements, and for assistance to small treatment works. Finally, it authorizes $15 million for research to identify threats,

detection methods and response actions. This bill makes tangible progress towards more secure and better prepared wastewater treatment works.

By contrast, drinking water facilities have conducted vulnerability assessments under the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2002, when Congress passed H.R. 3448, the Public Health and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act, P.L. 107-188. These plants are often co-located. It makes no sense to adopt strong standards for one infrastructure sector and not the other. In anticipation of congressional action on wastewater security, EPA has already issued guidance on conducting vulnerability assessments of wastewater treatment works, and many plants have already completed them.

The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act will codify what are now voluntary prevention and security measures and require all wastewater facilities to complete vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans, just as drinking water facilities have done since 2002.

Our homeland security strategy begins with protecting critical infrastructure, and wastewater treatment facilities can no longer remain the exception. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2005. This legislation is designed to improve the safety and security of our Nation's wastewater treatment systems.

There are 16,000 wastewater treatment facilities across the United States serving almost 190 million people. Approximately 1,600 facilities are located near large metropolitan areas. These industrial facilities use large quantities of toxic chemicals in their treatment and disinfection processes, and their collection systems run beneath every city and town in America.

A recent Department of Homeland Security planning scenario estimates that a chlorine tank explosion could result in 17,500 deaths, 10,000 severe injuries, and 100,000 hospitalizations. In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on wastewater security which ranks the release of chlorine as the number two security risk after damage to sewer collection systems.

In the past few years alone, fatal accidents involving large quantities of chlorine have reminded us of the highly volatile nature of this popular wastewater disinfection agent. In January 2005, 9 people were killed in South Carolina when a train carrying chlorine gas was involved in a crash. In June 2004, 3 people died when two freight trains collided in Texas and caused a chlorine tank to rupture.

At the very least, wastewater facilities that use chlorine should evaluate how the chemical is stored on site and how to react in the event of a harmful intentional act. The GAO report on wastewater security recommends mandatory vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans as an immediate step towards addressing the security concerns.

The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act takes the essential first step in closing the security gaps that make our wastewater treatment systems vulnerable to terrorist attack. The provisions contained in this bill are the product of four years worth of lessons learned since 9/11, mirroring similar legislative efforts to secure critical infrastructure and minimize potential terrorist targets.

This legislation requires all wastewater facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and to develop or modify site security and emergency response plans to incorporate the results of the vulnerability assessments. Treatment works must certify that alternative approaches, such as using smaller quantities or replacing substances of concern, were considered in their site security plans. It requires that these documents be submitted to EPA for review, and it includes significant security measures to protect this information from unauthorized disclosure.

Additionally, the legislation authorizes $250 million for assistance in completing vulnerability assessments, for immediate security improvements, and for assistance to small treatment works. Finally, it authorizes $15 million for research to identify threats,

detection methods and response actions. This bill makes tangible progress towards more secure and better prepared wastewater treatment works.

By contrast, drinking water facilities have conducted vulnerability assessments under the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2002, when Congress passed H.R. 3448, the Public Health and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act, P.L. 107-188. These plants are often co-located. It makes no sense to adopt strong standards for one infrastructure sector and not the other. In anticipation of congressional action on wastewater security, EPA has already issued guidance on conducting vulnerability assessments of wastewater treatment works, and many plants have already completed them.

The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act will codify what are now voluntary prevention and security measures and require all wastewater facilities to complete vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans, just as drinking water facilities have done since 2002.

Our homeland security strategy begins with protecting critical infrastructure, and wastewater treatment facilities can no longer remain the exception. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to express my support of Senator Bill Nelson's amendment to improve benefits for the survivors of America's servicemembers. This is a very important amendment that deserves the Senate's support.

Under current law, annuity payments received under the survivor benefit plan are reduced, dollar for dollar, by benefits received from the VA's dependency and indemnity compensation program.

This is not fair. Servicemembers pay into the survivor benefit plan and they expect that their surviving spouse and children will receive these benefits upon their death. But if the servicemember's surviving spouse is also entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation, then the benefits of the survivor benefit plan are significantly reduced.

Families who have lost a servicemember often face a very difficult future. Military death benefits are a significant help but often fall far short of providing for a secure future for a family. To further reduce a family's income by offsetting survivor benefit

plan benefits seems cruel. This amendment would end this offset. It is imperative that we do so now.

Enactment of this amendment would also correct another injustice. Congress has authorized military retirees who reach 70 years of age and who have paid survivor benefit plan premiums for at least 30 years to retain coverage while ceasing any further premium payments. Unfortunately, the effective date of this provision has been pushed out to October 1, 2008. This forces retirees to continue paying these premiums, even though, in some instances, they have been paying premiums for 36 years. This amendment would remove this unfair requirement and allow military retirees who have paid great amounts into their annuity plan to cease their payments after 30 years, just as Congress intended.

Passage of this amendment is urgent. The families of deceased servicemembers are dealing with a great deal of stress. They need the financial benefit provided by this amendment. Military retirees, likewise, deserve the relief now that Congress intended to give them.

It has been suggested that we postpone action on this matter until after the Commission on Veterans' Disability Compensation can study the larger issue of disability compensation. While the work of the Commission is very important, it is clear to me that the benefits provided by this amendment are of paramount importance and should not wait for the conclusion of a more exhaustive study of the disability compensation system. We must stand four-square behind those who have given their life for their country and behind those who have served their country for their entire career.

I urge my colleagues' support for the Nelson amendment.

Mr. President, this week my home State lost a devoted public servant, an environmental pioneer, a good friend, and a great Vermonter: Art Gibb.

I first met Art when we served together in the Vermont Legislature where Art was known for his unassuming and gracious temperament. Art also established a reputation as an insightful legislator with an unusual ability to forge consensus. These skills impressed me and, for over 30 years, I frequently sought Art's wisdom and advice when I found myself confronted with difficult decisions both in Washington and Montpelier.

Though Art was remarkably accomplished as a member of the Vermont Legislature, he will undoubtedly be remembered for his work on the Governor's Commission on Environmental Control through which he helped save Vermont's beauty and natural resources from reckless overdevelopment. Gov. Deane Davis appointed Art to lead the commission, which became known as the ``Gibb Commission,'' in 1969 as developers began exploiting lenient building regulations in an effort to turn a quick profit at the expense of public health and the environment. The Gibb Commission traveled the State, held public hearings, and worked tirelessly to draft recommendations to address this pressing concern. The result of the Gibb Commission's work was the bold and pioneering Act 250, legislation that has protected Vermont's waterways, forests, and natural landscape ever since.

Art's leadership of the Gibb Commission and his work during his two decades in the legislature earned him well-deserved accolades. Still, Art never operated with any fanfare. Despite his newsworthy accomplishments, Art was never interested in seeing his name in the headlines. His temperament and fair and nonpartisan nature won Art the respect and admiration of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Today, Art's portrait hangs in the State House, a rare honor and a fitting tribute for a man who left such an important mark on Vermont, both as a person and a policymaker.

When Art retired from the Vermont Senate in 1986 I noted, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, ``I am more than certain, however, that all of us in Vermont will continue to benefit from his,-- Art's--wit, his intelligence, his commitment, and his grace for many, many years to come.'' This statement proved to be true, as Art remained an active member of the community and even served 12 years on the State Environmental Board after his retirement. Today, as we remember Art, I take comfort in the certainty that generations of Vermonters will continue to benefit for years to come from Art's devotion to the preservation and conservation of our great State.

I extend my deepest condolences to Art's surviving children Barbara, Dwight, Lowrie, Arthur, Jr. and Henry, as well as Art's ten grandchildren and seven great grandchildren. All Vermonters mourn with you knowing that without Art, Vermont would not be the beautiful and healthy place it is today.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell to strike title IV of the bill before us, the title that opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. I do not support drilling in the refuge. But even if a Senator did, they should not support taking this action through the reconciliation process. It is inappropriate to make management decisions regarding one of our Nation's largest and most ecologically important wildlife refuges in a fast-track, procedurally limited bill. Doing so restricts the ability of the Senate and the administration to ensure that drilling is done in an environmentally sound way.

I have to agree with the ranking member of Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, who stated during the markup of this title, that this title does not just open the refuge to oil drilling, it also does so in the least environmentally sensitive way possible. And, Mr. President, it does so in a manner that treats the Arctic Refuge differently than any other Federal lands or wildlife refuges.

Arctic Refuge drilling proponents repeatedly profess that oil development in the refuge would be done in an environmentally sensitive way. As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I want to inform the Senate that title IV of this bill is actually riddled with clauses that weaken existing environmental standards, exempt drilling from key rules, or otherwise allow oil development activities to sidestep environmental protection laws.

Let me list some of the more blatant examples for my colleagues. First, the title exempts parts of the proposed Arctic oil and gas leasing program from environmental review requirements. In particular, it declares that

the Department of Interior's Environmental Impact Statement, EIS, prepared in 1987 satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, for preparation of the regulations that will guide the leasing program. NEPA is supposed to ensure that public and Federal decision makers have the most recent, accurate information concerning the environmental impacts of projects, but this clause seems to ensure the opposite. In fact, as long ago as 1991, in a case called NRDC v. Lujan, a Federal court found that due to new scientific information, Interior should have supplemented this very same 1987 EIS analysis before recommending to Congress that it allow development on the Coastal Plain.

In 2002, some 15 years after the 1987 EIS, the U.S. Geological Survey released a significant report detailing 12 years of study about the potential impacts of oil drilling on the wildlife of the Arctic Refuge. This information can, and should be incorporated as the Interior Department's consideration of drilling.

Many now question whether the existing final legislative environmental impact statement, prepared in 1987 to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, is adequate to support development now, or whether a Supplement or a new EIS should be prepared. As I mentioned, a court in a declaratory judgment action in 1991 held that the Interior Department should have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, SEIS, at that time to encompass new information about the Coastal Plain. Therefore, without the language of title IV, it seems clear that either an SEIS or a new EIS would have to be prepared before drilling could begin.

The bill before us states that the Congress finds the 1987 EIS adequate to satisfy the legal and procedural requirements of NEPA with respect to the actions authorized to be taken by the Secretary of the Interior in developing and promulgating the regulations for the establishment of the leasing program. This language explicitly eliminates the need to redo or update the EIS for the leasing regulations.

There is no question that this language substantially weakens environmental review requirements. It significantly diminishes the comprehensive analysis traditionally required by NEPA, by stating that the Secretary of the Interior need consider only its preferred action and a single leasing alternative. The ``alternatives analysis,'' which is all but eliminated by this section of the bill, is the heart of NEPA. Senators supporting this provision should be fully aware that these limitations strike at the core of our country's environmental review process and requirements.

Further, this title undermines the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's authority to impose conditions on leases. This title states that the oil and gas leasing program is ``deemed to be compatible'' with the purposes of the Arctic Refuge. According to the Congressional Research Service, this provision ``appears to eliminate the usual compatibility determination process for purposes of refuge management.'' CRS notes that without the compatibility process, the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service to impose conditions on leases is called into question.

Mr. President, we can do better, and we should. Reconciliation constrains the way in which Senators who are concerned about these issues, and who do not serve on the Energy Committee or the Budget Committee, are able to address them on the floor.

I would caution all Members of the Senate who have committed to support Arctic drilling only in certain cases, or only if certain other legislative or regulatory actions take place, to think seriously about whether reconciliation serves their interests and their constituents' interests. I would also caution all members, as Senators Bingaman and Durbin have done, that if this language remains in the bill, it opens the door for further attempts through reconciliation to override the requirements of environmental or any other law under the guise of ensuring that we obtain revenue.

Finally, I oppose using reconciliation to open the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain to oil drilling because I believe it is being used to limit consideration of a controversial issue. The American people have strongly held views on drilling in the refuge, and they want to know that the Senate is working to pass legislation to manage the area appropriately in a forthright and open process. Senator Cantwell's amendment is the best way to ensure that open process is followed, and I urge Senators to support her amendment.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Military Family Support Act of 2005 with my colleague and friend from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold. Our bill will help military families ease the stress caused by long-term absences due to deployments overseas.

I was contacted a few months back by a group of Vermonters looking for a way to help their coworkers with family in the Vermont National Guard. When a member of the armed forces is activated and deployed, family structures and daily functioning are severely affected. The day- to-day life of families is, in many cases, more than a one-person job. Any absence, especially absences of several months due to a deployment overseas, can be debilitating to family life. The stories of soldiers and their families from Enosburg Falls, VT, were told very poignantly in a piece reported by the Los Angeles Times. Enosburg and neighboring communities have contributed a disproportionately high number of National Guard troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Because of this, Enosburg's men and women have felt the pains of separation and long deployments more than most. Enosburg and surrounding towns and villages should be proud of the sacrifices made by their men and women in uniform and by those employers and family members who remained at home. Vermont is a place where neighbors help neighbors and I am proud of all the people throughout the state who have given so much support to Guard families.

The Military Family Support Act of 2005 is a straightforward bill that proposes two pilot programs. The first pilot program, administered by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would authorize Federal employees, who have been designated by a member of the Armed Forces as ``caregivers'', as defined by the Department of Defense, DOD, to use their leave in a more flexible manner. No new leave would be conferred to any employees. This bill simply makes leave already available more useful during stressful times for military families. The second pilot program would be established by the Department of Labor, DOL, to solicit businesses to voluntarily take part in a program to offer more accommodating leave to their employees. This bill does not include in its scope the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, and it does not require any private sector entity to participate. The goal of the Military Family Support Act is to make life a little easier for those who are already giving so much to our country and to their communities.

I ask unanimous consent that a May 2, 2005, article from the Los Angeles Times be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the Military Family Support Act of 2005 be printed in Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Military Family Support Act of 2005 with my colleague and friend from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold. Our bill will help military families ease the stress caused by long-term absences due to deployments overseas.

I was contacted a few months back by a group of Vermonters looking for a way to help their coworkers with family in the Vermont National Guard. When a member of the armed forces is activated and deployed, family structures and daily functioning are severely affected. The day- to-day life of families is, in many cases, more than a one-person job. Any absence, especially absences of several months due to a deployment overseas, can be debilitating to family life. The stories of soldiers and their families from Enosburg Falls, VT, were told very poignantly in a piece reported by the Los Angeles Times. Enosburg and neighboring communities have contributed a disproportionately high number of National Guard troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Because of this, Enosburg's men and women have felt the pains of separation and long deployments more than most. Enosburg and surrounding towns and villages should be proud of the sacrifices made by their men and women in uniform and by those employers and family members who remained at home. Vermont is a place where neighbors help neighbors and I am proud of all the people throughout the state who have given so much support to Guard families.

The Military Family Support Act of 2005 is a straightforward bill that proposes two pilot programs. The first pilot program, administered by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would authorize Federal employees, who have been designated by a member of the Armed Forces as ``caregivers'', as defined by the Department of Defense, DOD, to use their leave in a more flexible manner. No new leave would be conferred to any employees. This bill simply makes leave already available more useful during stressful times for military families. The second pilot program would be established by the Department of Labor, DOL, to solicit businesses to voluntarily take part in a program to offer more accommodating leave to their employees. This bill does not include in its scope the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, and it does not require any private sector entity to participate. The goal of the Military Family Support Act is to make life a little easier for those who are already giving so much to our country and to their communities.

I ask unanimous consent that a May 2, 2005, article from the Los Angeles Times be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the Military Family Support Act of 2005 be printed in Record.

Mr. President, over the past several weeks, in the wake of two hurricanes, we have felt the heartbreak of Americans forced from their homes with no return in sight. Safe and affordable housing is not something we should take for granted.

Today I am introducing the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2005. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Paul Sarbanes and Mark Dayton. This bill provides federal matching funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing federally-assisted or - insured affordable housing properties that are in danger of being lost from the affordable housing inventory.

There is a great need for affordable housing. All across the country, housing is becoming less attainable for more and more families. In my own State of Vermont, renting--let alone owning--a home is becoming difficult if not impossible for many families. The minimum wage in Vermont is seven dollars. However, a family must earn almost $28,000 in yearly income to afford a two-bedroom apartment, which requires a wage of over $13 per hour. For example, in Vermont, a two-bedroom apartment costs about $698 per month, and a minimum wage earner can afford no more than $364 for rent. This trend is not unique to Vermont. Nationwide, the wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is over $15 an hour. Approximately one-quarter of the U.S. earns less than $10 per hour. There are some communities where affordable housing was never a concern before, but are now facing a shortage growing ever more severe. I ask unanimous consent to have a chart compiled by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), ``State Ranks Based on Two Bedroom Housing Wage'', inserted in the Record. As my colleagues read this chart, I encourage them to refer to the NLIHC report issued last year, ``Out of Reach'', for a more comprehensive overview of housing prices and diminishing affordability. I found this report particularly alarming and eye-opening.

There are several strategies to consider in combating the affordable housing crisis. A comprehensive plan of economic and community development and revitalization--from public and private sector sources--is one strategy that has proved successful. Some of the increasing need for affordable housing is met with the construction of new units. But in many communities, a stock of affordable housing already exists, and there is a desire among local leaders to preserve it. My bill helps States, localities, and other entities do just that.

The bill I am introducing today, the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2005, represents an effort to complement the good work being done throughout the country on Section 8 initiatives, and it strives to preserve existing affordable housing. Specifically, this legislation would conserve federally-subsidized housing units by providing matching grants to states and localities, who then may work with other housing entities, seeking to preserve privately owned, affordable housing.

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, would make determinations for the grants based on a number of factors, including the number of affordable housing units at risk of being lost and the local market conditions in which displaced residents would have to find comparable new housing options. States and localities could use the funds to acquire or rehabilitate housing, which may be done by working with established not-for-profit organizations that specialize in providing affordable housing. They could use the funds, in part, for administrative and operating expenses. Properties with mortgages insured by HUD, Section 8 project-based assisted housing, and properties that are being purchased by residents would all be eligible for the matching grant funds. I believe that flexibility with the funding would make this program more efficient and cost effective, and, most importantly, more helpful to the recipients themselves.

What's more important to a family than a place to call home? Affordable, quality, and safe housing is the foundation, literally and figuratively, that communities are built upon. As the Senate crafts a comprehensive federal response to the housing crisis, including emergency housing assistance for those affected by the hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I am eager to work with my colleagues to integrate the principles of housing preservation into affordable housing, economic and community development and revitalization initiatives.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005 on behalf of the minority side of the EPW Committee. We have introduced three bi- partisan bills to date in our committee's jurisdiction. One of them even passed the Senate last week. Those bills, which I would characterize as tweaks to existing authorities, were good first steps and are included in the package we introduce today.

But, we feel that the breadth and the magnitude of the damage after Hurricane Katrina demands a more significant response. As I look at the pictures of the damage in the areas hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina, I think of the visitors from Terrebonne Parish that visited me in my office to seek support for flood control projects in Louisiana. At the time, I was struck by the vulnerability of this community to the effects of nature. Today, we are seeing those effects firsthand. I have thought

often in the past month of the strong spirit shown by those who visited my office, and I know, that while it is almost unimaginable today, in a few years, there will be thriving communities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama once again.

The bill I am introducing today is not intended to address every need of every person in the Katrina-affected area. It is a bill that seeks to take action for those agencies within the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee to ensure that they have the authority and the direction they need. I am a big believer in a single coordinated Federal disaster response process through the Stafford Act. Our bill complements the single, coordinated approach, yet recognizes the unique conditions in this case.

FEMA has shown itself to be ineffective, in my opinion, largely due to the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA's lack of independence. At the time of the creation of DHS, I said: I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who will? (November 20, 2002)

Today, unfortunately, we know the answer--no one.

The Federal aid provided for Katrina must be coordinated in a wise, targeted manner. To perform this task, our bill creates a Federal infrastructure Task Force to make spending decisions and establish Federal investment standards.

There have been large storms before--in 1965 Hurricane Betsy hit almost this same area. There will be large storms again. This bill recognizes that and establishes National Preparedness Grants and several readiness studies to update emergency response plans, resolve inadequacies, and identify infrastructure vulnerabilities.

To speed economic recovery, the bill provides 200M to both the Economic Development Administration and the Delta Regional Authority.

Part of the long-term recovery of the region will be the clean-up of the environmental damage. Our bill provides direction to EPA to ensure that adequate sampling is performed, that the public knows the results, that drinking water and wastewater services are restored, and that cleanups are prioritized.

The Army Corps of Engineers has a lot of explaining to do after the levee failure in New Orleans. The Corps also has a lot of clean up to do and a lot of rebuilding to do. The flood control system in place today was built in the wake of the damage caused by Hurricane Betsy in 1965. I believe it is critical that we fully evaluate the entire Corps process to determine what changes should be made. This bill takes only a first step to be sure that we don't simply rebuild what was already in New Orleans without thinking. The bill requires the Corps to assess all projects in the area and repair or modify them with one comprehensive approach.

We establish a National Levee Safety Program in this bill, similar to the Dam Safety Program to be sure our nation's levees can be counted on.

Finally, our bill allows communities that provide incentives for the use of public transportation or ridesharing after a disaster to seek Federal reimbursement.

What doesn't our bill do? Our bill does not waive environmental statutes. Since the Stafford Act was passed in 1974, there have been thousands of declared disasters. Never before have we faced a proposal to haphazardly waive environmental statutes across the Nation in the name of economic recovery in one devastated area. In the last few weeks several proposals have been introduced to give the President or EPA broad waiver authority in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. These proposals put human health and the environment at risk throughout the Nation by allowing permanent waivers to environmental or other laws, anywhere in the Nation, to be granted with few or no criteria, and no public involvement.

The consequences of such an action could be significant. For example, new refineries or power generating facilities could be built while exempt from the Clean Air Act, causing long-term air quality impacts. Congressional offshore drilling bans could be waived to alleviate a fuel shortage. Safe Drinking Water Act regulations could be changed to waive limits on pollutant levels in an effort to speed reoccupancy of hurricane-affected areas, putting public health at risk. Protections for minorities or low-income people such as OSHA safety regulations or the minimum wage could be waived.

I want to help the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The people of my home State of Vermont are appalled at the state of affairs there and want to help. But, I cannot accept a proposal this broad which will put human health and the environment throughout the Nation at the mercy of one President or appointed official with no time limits, no consideration of human health or the environment, no public participation, and no guidance. Such as effort will only hurt the people of an already devastated region in the long run, not help them.

We must not just act to help the victims of Katrina. We must act in a thoughtful, meaningful, positive way.

The Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005 meets that test. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.

Mr. President, over the past several weeks, in the wake of two hurricanes, we have felt the heartbreak of Americans forced from their homes with no return in sight. Safe and affordable housing is not something we should take for granted.

Today I am introducing the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2005. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Paul Sarbanes and Mark Dayton. This bill provides federal matching funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing federally-assisted or - insured affordable housing properties that are in danger of being lost from the affordable housing inventory.

There is a great need for affordable housing. All across the country, housing is becoming less attainable for more and more families. In my own State of Vermont, renting--let alone owning--a home is becoming difficult if not impossible for many families. The minimum wage in Vermont is seven dollars. However, a family must earn almost $28,000 in yearly income to afford a two-bedroom apartment, which requires a wage of over $13 per hour. For example, in Vermont, a two-bedroom apartment costs about $698 per month, and a minimum wage earner can afford no more than $364 for rent. This trend is not unique to Vermont. Nationwide, the wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is over $15 an hour. Approximately one-quarter of the U.S. earns less than $10 per hour. There are some communities where affordable housing was never a concern before, but are now facing a shortage growing ever more severe. I ask unanimous consent to have a chart compiled by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), ``State Ranks Based on Two Bedroom Housing Wage'', inserted in the Record. As my colleagues read this chart, I encourage them to refer to the NLIHC report issued last year, ``Out of Reach'', for a more comprehensive overview of housing prices and diminishing affordability. I found this report particularly alarming and eye-opening.

There are several strategies to consider in combating the affordable housing crisis. A comprehensive plan of economic and community development and revitalization--from public and private sector sources--is one strategy that has proved successful. Some of the increasing need for affordable housing is met with the construction of new units. But in many communities, a stock of affordable housing already exists, and there is a desire among local leaders to preserve it. My bill helps States, localities, and other entities do just that.

The bill I am introducing today, the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2005, represents an effort to complement the good work being done throughout the country on Section 8 initiatives, and it strives to preserve existing affordable housing. Specifically, this legislation would conserve federally-subsidized housing units by providing matching grants to states and localities, who then may work with other housing entities, seeking to preserve privately owned, affordable housing.

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, would make determinations for the grants based on a number of factors, including the number of affordable housing units at risk of being lost and the local market conditions in which displaced residents would have to find comparable new housing options. States and localities could use the funds to acquire or rehabilitate housing, which may be done by working with established not-for-profit organizations that specialize in providing affordable housing. They could use the funds, in part, for administrative and operating expenses. Properties with mortgages insured by HUD, Section 8 project-based assisted housing, and properties that are being purchased by residents would all be eligible for the matching grant funds. I believe that flexibility with the funding would make this program more efficient and cost effective, and, most importantly, more helpful to the recipients themselves.

What's more important to a family than a place to call home? Affordable, quality, and safe housing is the foundation, literally and figuratively, that communities are built upon. As the Senate crafts a comprehensive federal response to the housing crisis, including emergency housing assistance for those affected by the hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I am eager to work with my colleagues to integrate the principles of housing preservation into affordable housing, economic and community development and revitalization initiatives.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005 on behalf of the minority side of the EPW Committee. We have introduced three bi- partisan bills to date in our committee's jurisdiction. One of them even passed the Senate last week. Those bills, which I would characterize as tweaks to existing authorities, were good first steps and are included in the package we introduce today.

But, we feel that the breadth and the magnitude of the damage after Hurricane Katrina demands a more significant response. As I look at the pictures of the damage in the areas hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina, I think of the visitors from Terrebonne Parish that visited me in my office to seek support for flood control projects in Louisiana. At the time, I was struck by the vulnerability of this community to the effects of nature. Today, we are seeing those effects firsthand. I have thought

often in the past month of the strong spirit shown by those who visited my office, and I know, that while it is almost unimaginable today, in a few years, there will be thriving communities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama once again.

The bill I am introducing today is not intended to address every need of every person in the Katrina-affected area. It is a bill that seeks to take action for those agencies within the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee to ensure that they have the authority and the direction they need. I am a big believer in a single coordinated Federal disaster response process through the Stafford Act. Our bill complements the single, coordinated approach, yet recognizes the unique conditions in this case.

FEMA has shown itself to be ineffective, in my opinion, largely due to the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA's lack of independence. At the time of the creation of DHS, I said: I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who will? (November 20, 2002)

Today, unfortunately, we know the answer--no one.

The Federal aid provided for Katrina must be coordinated in a wise, targeted manner. To perform this task, our bill creates a Federal infrastructure Task Force to make spending decisions and establish Federal investment standards.

There have been large storms before--in 1965 Hurricane Betsy hit almost this same area. There will be large storms again. This bill recognizes that and establishes National Preparedness Grants and several readiness studies to update emergency response plans, resolve inadequacies, and identify infrastructure vulnerabilities.

To speed economic recovery, the bill provides 200M to both the Economic Development Administration and the Delta Regional Authority.

Part of the long-term recovery of the region will be the clean-up of the environmental damage. Our bill provides direction to EPA to ensure that adequate sampling is performed, that the public knows the results, that drinking water and wastewater services are restored, and that cleanups are prioritized.

The Army Corps of Engineers has a lot of explaining to do after the levee failure in New Orleans. The Corps also has a lot of clean up to do and a lot of rebuilding to do. The flood control system in place today was built in the wake of the damage caused by Hurricane Betsy in 1965. I believe it is critical that we fully evaluate the entire Corps process to determine what changes should be made. This bill takes only a first step to be sure that we don't simply rebuild what was already in New Orleans without thinking. The bill requires the Corps to assess all projects in the area and repair or modify them with one comprehensive approach.

We establish a National Levee Safety Program in this bill, similar to the Dam Safety Program to be sure our nation's levees can be counted on.

Finally, our bill allows communities that provide incentives for the use of public transportation or ridesharing after a disaster to seek Federal reimbursement.

What doesn't our bill do? Our bill does not waive environmental statutes. Since the Stafford Act was passed in 1974, there have been thousands of declared disasters. Never before have we faced a proposal to haphazardly waive environmental statutes across the Nation in the name of economic recovery in one devastated area. In the last few weeks several proposals have been introduced to give the President or EPA broad waiver authority in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. These proposals put human health and the environment at risk throughout the Nation by allowing permanent waivers to environmental or other laws, anywhere in the Nation, to be granted with few or no criteria, and no public involvement.

The consequences of such an action could be significant. For example, new refineries or power generating facilities could be built while exempt from the Clean Air Act, causing long-term air quality impacts. Congressional offshore drilling bans could be waived to alleviate a fuel shortage. Safe Drinking Water Act regulations could be changed to waive limits on pollutant levels in an effort to speed reoccupancy of hurricane-affected areas, putting public health at risk. Protections for minorities or low-income people such as OSHA safety regulations or the minimum wage could be waived.

I want to help the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The people of my home State of Vermont are appalled at the state of affairs there and want to help. But, I cannot accept a proposal this broad which will put human health and the environment throughout the Nation at the mercy of one President or appointed official with no time limits, no consideration of human health or the environment, no public participation, and no guidance. Such as effort will only hurt the people of an already devastated region in the long run, not help them.

We must not just act to help the victims of Katrina. We must act in a thoughtful, meaningful, positive way.

The Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005 meets that test. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.

Mr. President, generally when we vote, the decisions we make can be revisited within a few months or years. This year's appropriations policy can be replaced by a new one next year. Unintended consequences can be rectified, legislation fine tuned.

But the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court Justice last well beyond a Senator's term and maybe even his or her life. Given Judge John Roberts' age, he may be making critical decisions on constitutional rights when my newborn grandson is welcoming children of his own into this world.

Not surprisingly then, I consider voting on the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, and especially the Chief Justice, one of the most important responsibilities of a Senator.

While I have considered and voted on four Supreme Court nominees during my tenure in the Senate, the nomination of Judge Roberts to be the 17th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is my first chance to consider the nomination of an individual to be the Chief Justice.

I have spent a great deal of time the last few weeks considering this nomination. I looked at Judge Roberts' decisions during his tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, reviewed the memorandums he wrote while working in the Reagan administration, watched the nomination hearing, and listened to what my Senate colleagues have said on this nomination. After considering all of this, I have decided to support Judge Roberts' nomination to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

My decision to support Judge Roberts did not come easily. As my father, who served as the Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court, first taught me, the law trumps any personal beliefs when a judge is working to reach

a decision on a case. A fair, equal application of the law is what Olin Jeffords was known for, which is a reflection of Vermont's view of the judiciary.

As the former attorney general in Vermont, and as a lawyer, I have always been deeply devoted to the Framers' concept of an independent judiciary filled with intelligent, capable individuals serving the law and the public. As a Senator, I have watched in dismay as this independence has increasingly been threatened and demeaned by partisan bickering.

It has been my general policy while in the Senate to support the executive branch nominations made by a President, provided the individual is appropriately qualified and capable of performing the duties required of the position. However, while a position in the executive branch lasts only as long as the President remains in office, an appointment to the Federal bench is for the life of the nominee.

I believe it would be illogical to assume that our Founding Fathers used the phrase, `` . . . with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . .'' in the Constitution to mean the Senate can only look at the legal experience and character of a judicial nominee. So in addition to those factors I also look at a nominee's judicial temperament and ideology and whether these factors will influence the decisions they make.

This higher standard is especially appropriate for a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. This Court is the final authority on the meaning of laws and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court gives meaning to what is the scope of the right of privacy; whether Vermont's limits on campaign contributions and spending are constitutional; what is an unreasonable search and seizure; how expansive the power of the president can be; or whether Congress exceeded its power in passing a law. These are issues that affect everyone, and it is the responsibility of the Senate to closely and carefully review every nominee to the Supreme Court.

There are clearly many stances Judge Roberts took as a lawyer in the Reagan administration that I do not agree with. Here it is unfortunate the Senate has been denied access to the memorandums Judge Roberts wrote while part of the Solicitor General's office. These documents would have provided a more complete picture.

From the record we have, nobody has raised a question on whether Judge Roberts has the proper legal experience or character to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It also appears to me from a review of his judicial decisions that Judge Roberts has not allowed his judicial temperament or ideology to influence his decisionmaking process.

This belief was reinforced by Judge Roberts himself in sworn statements he made to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In his opening statement Judge Roberts stated, ``I have no platform.'' He also said, that he would ``confront every case with an open mind . . . And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability.'' Near the end of 3 days of testimony Judge Roberts reiterated this view when he said, ``I set those personal views aside.''

With the information and sworn testimony on the record it is clear Judge Roberts has the necessary legal experience and character to be the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It also appears that Judge Roberts will use the law and the Constitution to make his judicial decisions, not his ideological or personal beliefs. Judge Roberts gave this pledge at the conclusion of his opening remarks, ``I will be vigilant to protect the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court, and I will work to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and safeguards those liberties that make this land one of endless possibilities for all Americans.'' I trust he will stay true to these words during his tenure as Chief Justice. History will be the judge.

Finally, let me acknowledge and thank the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators Specter and Leahy led a dignified, bipartisan and thorough hearing on Judge Roberts. For all this hard work they deserve our thanks and appreciation.

Mr. President, I am here today to ask for my colleagues' support for a resolution designating September as Leukemia, Lymphoma and Myeloma Awareness Month. Today, I want to speak specifically about leukemia, a disease that affects nearly 200,000 Americans.

Leukemia is a devastating cancer of the blood that will kill almost 23,000 people this year alone. It is rare to find anyone today who does not know someone, a family member or a friend, who has battled leukemia. Recently, one of my former staff members, Jess Eiesland, was diagnosed with leukemia. He is only 28. He left my office in May of this year to follow in his father's footsteps and pursue a career in finance. On June 18th, Jess was diagnosed with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, a form of the disease characterized by the uncontrolled production of immature white blood cells by the bone marrow. Jess is now back in South Dakota with his family and traveling to Minnesota to undergo an 11-week course of chemotherapy in preparation for a bone marrow transplant.

In comparison, Jess is one of the lucky ones. His leukemia was caught early and he has just learned that his sister, Laura, is a bone marrow match. This match will reduce Jess' risk of developing severe side effects from the transplant or rejecting the new cells. Only 30 percent of patients in need of a bone marrow transplant have a matching donor in their families. Others have to depend on the kindness of strangers who have registered their bone marrow types with the National Bone Marrow Registry and volunteered as donors. In honor of Jess, a bone marrow registration drive is being held in Room 124 of the Senate Hart building on Friday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Because of the risk of rejection associated with bone marrow transplants and the difficulty in finding donors, the National Institutes of Health and the private sector have developed other promising leukemia treatments, such as cord blood transplants and the pharmaceutical drug, Gleevec, the first of a slew of promising new drugs that target the underlying causes of the disease. To promote these innovative treatments, we must continue to support biomedical research. I applaud the efforts of our distinguished colleagues, Senators Hatch and Dodd, who introduced legislation earlier this year that would encourage cord blood donations and registrations. This legislation has already been reported favorably by the HELP Committee and I hope the full Senate can take it up and pass it soon. Additionally, the Senate has requested a $1 billion dollar funding increase for the NIH in fiscal year 2006 to promote Federal research and innovation.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution designating September as National Leukemia, Lymphoma and Myeloma Awareness Month. Doing so will further disseminate information regarding treatment innovations and will encourage Americans to become bone marrow or cord blood donors.

Mr. President, I will be brief but concise.

This is not a vote about reducing mercury by 90 percent by 2009 or even 70 percent by the year 2030. That is a red herring.

This is not a vote about the opponents' wildly outdated claims on the potential cost or the availability of mercury controls.

This is not even a vote about the well-documented and devastating effects of toxic mercury on future generations of children or the Nation's environmental health.

Mr. President and Senators, this is a vote about whether the administration failed to comply with the law. We cannot afford to get it wrong now. There will be no going back.

After careful review, I have concluded that there was such a failure that this was an intentional and illegal effort to circumvent the law, and that it was designed to benefit big energy companies at the expense of the public health.

This failure has been documented in reports by GAO, the Inspector General, in the press, and in testimony before the Environment Committee and the Democratic Policy Committee.

Our resolution sends the agency back to the drawing board to get it right and to comply with the law.

Mr. President and Senators, it is this simple: Should the administration comply with the Clean Air Act? I think so and will vote yes. If you think so, vote yes on this resolution.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Vermont, the Senators from Maine, and many other Senators in a bipartisan effort to oppose the administration's mishandling of the Clean Air Act. That is what our resolution of disapproval is about.

We are here because the Bush administration's mercury rule violates the Clean Air Act. This rule is plainly illegal, it is unwise, and it is definitely unhealthy for Americans living downwind of coal-fired powerplants, especially mothers and their soon-to-be-born children.

The administration, with a simple wave of its hands, has used the rules to delay compliance with the mercury control requirements for a decade or longer than the law allows. Our resolution of disapproval is simple enough for even the biggest energy company, and the administration even, to understand. We reject this abuse of the Clean Air Act, and we demand they follow the rules of the land.

The law says: Each and every powerplant unit that emits mercury and other toxic air pollutants must take action to reduce these emissions by using maximum available control technology, or MACT.

The administration could have gone through the appropriate statutory process to delist and exempt their powerplants from regulation, but that is not what they did. Instead, they made up a whole new deregulatory scheme to help out the big energy companies. But the act does not provide them with that authority. They do not have the luxury of ignoring the laws that regular Americans must follow and that Congress wrote to protect the public's health and the environment. This administration is not above the law.

The EPA is allowed to set the MACT standard after considering costs and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements. That they could have done. But, instead, the administration chose to violate a settlement agreement. They shut down an advisory commission because they did not like getting scientifically credible answers on mercury controls and costs. The process used to create this rule was flawed and was intended to delay and obstruct any mercury control requirements whatsoever.

In the end, the administration almost wholly adopted the utility industry's proposal on how to regulate mercury emissions. If this is not the proverbial ``fox watching the chicken coop,'' what is? This is not the way the law is supposed to work in America, nor does work in America.

I urge my colleagues, and everyone listening, to support our resolution of disapproval and to support this motion to proceed. We deserve a fair up-or-down vote on the administration's rule that illegally exempts big energy companies from having to reduce toxic air pollution wherever it is emitted.

I yield the floor.