Floor Statements

Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 6, as amended by the Senate, the Energy bill. I want to explain in detail my reasons for supporting this legislation and highlight my serious concerns regarding the House-passed version of H.R. 6. I strongly oppose many of the provisions in the House-passed bill, and the Senate conferees should hold strongly to the Senate-version of this bill and reject the House legislation.

Energy policy is an important issue for America and one my Vermont constituents take very seriously. The bill before us seeks to address important issues, such as the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the tradeoffs between the need for energy and the need to protect the quality of our environment, and the need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the importance of energy policy, this bill is a very serious matter. I do not take a decision to support such a bill lightly. Although this bill is not exactly as I would have written it, it begins to move this Nation toward a more balanced approach to our energy needs.

During floor debate, the Senate modified the renewable fuels standard contained in the Energy Committee reported bill to more closely resemble legislation reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, S. 606. Specifically, the bill would repeal the Clean Air Act requirement for oxygenated gasoline, and phase out the use of the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, in 4 years. It would require refiners to use biofuels, presumably mostly ethanol, in volumes of 8 billion gallons by 2012. This is a much more aggressive goal than the 108th Congress Senate-passed bill that I supported, which included a 5 billion gallon by 2012 mandate. It is my hope that such a significant commitment will begin to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

I would like to share the history of the renewable fuels provisions included in this bill we are adopting today. I've long supported a more aggressive approach to replacing petroleum-based motor fuels with fuels made from domestic resources, including ethanol produced by farmers growing grains and fibers. I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman on their leadership on this important matter.

Back in 1991, I introduced S. 716, the Replacement Fuels Act, to require gasoline refiners to replace increasing percentages of their product with domestically produced, nonpetroleum liquids. Many of us knew then that it was technologically possible, and now it seems that a majority has crossed that threshold of understanding.

When I first introduced my Replacement Fuels Act, many did not take it seriously. The oil industry certainly did not. But I made the rounds with several of my colleagues to convince them of the benefits of such a program, including the national security benefits of weaning ourselves from our dependency on foreign oil. At the time, I argued that the costs to our military, in terms of personnel and dollars, of protecting the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf, and of attempting to quell the political unrest of the Middle East, were staggering then and only apt to grow larger.

I recall meeting with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, now the chairman of the Energy Committee, in his office to discuss my bill. We agreed on the domestic benefits of moving in this direction--for our farmers; for our environment; for our national and domestic security. After considerable discussion, Senator Domenici agreed to cosponsor my bill.

I made the rounds to other members of the Energy Committee for their advice and support. Many of those committee members who cosponsored my bill are still here today--Senators Bingaman, Burns, Craig and Conrad, Shelby and Akaka. Four other committee members, since retired, also were cosponsors, making a majority of the committee and ensuring committee approval. Other Members who cosponsored my bill and who are here today include Senators Grassley, Reid, and Warner.

In the end, the bulk of the language of my Replacement Fuels Act was included as title V of Public Law 102-486 the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Before final passage of that act, however, in every instance that ``shall'' appeared in my bill, it was changed to ``may'' in the final law. In other words, it changed from a mandate to an option, and we've only made modest gains in the past dozen years, when we could have made bold progress.

So, again, I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman for their leadership to move us more aggressively toward domestic production of transportation fuels and away from our growing foreign dependence.

I urge Senators and the public to take note of the Sense of the Senate on climate change successfully included in the bill due to the efforts of Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Specter, and many others. It says that Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that, one, will not significantly harm the United States economy; and, two, will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions. Such a program regarding air pollution and environmental policy is clearly in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am strongly committed to holding hearings and reporting implementing and bipartisan legislation from that committee, on which I serve as the ranking member, as soon as possible.

During debate on the renewable fuels provisions, I agreed to modify the absolute deadline for EPA's long-awaited and long-delayed mobile source air toxics, MSAT, rule from July 2005 in Domenici amendment No. 779 to July 2007. EPA is widely expected to promulgate a final rule well before that later date, but this provision provides additional certainty and protection. In addition, the provision as amended and included by Senator Inhofe in the last manager's package, will allow EPA to regulate more stringently than the 2001-2002 toxics emissions reductions baseline in the final MSAT rule.

That more stringent rule will take the place of the baseline so long as it

will achieve and maintain greater overall reductions in emissions of air toxics. Such reductions must occur in the same timeframe and result in overall reductions of each and every one of the air toxics emitted in the combustion of gasoline, when compared to the 2001-2002 baseline. This provision should not be construed to permit EPA to count reductions of less toxic pollutants like aldehydes equal in effect or equivalent to reductions of more toxic pollutants like benzene. The intent of this provision is not to allow EPA to avoid toxics potency weighting or sensible risk analysis and exposure assessment in determining the meaning of ``overall reductions.'' This provision should also not be viewed as a vehicle for changes to the liability system for fuel additives. The Senate has spoken very strongly on this point, and the conferees should be aware that any new MTBE language addressing the issue of retroactive liability is likely to jeopardize passage of the conference report in the Senate.

I am also pleased that the Senate included a 10-percent renewable portfolio standard in this bill. I have worked for more than 20 years to boost the percentage of renewable sources used to generate our Nation's electricity. While I believe we could be taking a much more aggressive step, we need to take a serious first step, and the provisions in this bill do just that. Though I understand that the House has concerns with adding an RPS, it is my hope that the conferees will acknowledge that, for many States, renewable energy can and should be a bigger energy source.

I am pleased that the Senate has also chosen to promote renewable energy by accepting three amendments I offered to the bill during floor debate. It is my hope these modest provisions will be retained in conference. My first amendment will make significant reductions in energy use in the Capitol complex by requiring the Architect of the Capitol to review the possibility for energy savings in the Dirksen Building. The second two amendments expand the sources of grant financing available to utilities for projects involving renewables and efficiency. The Senate has agreed to add livestock methane, a promising source of energy in Vermont, as an energy source that is eligible to compete for grants under the Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Incentives Program. The Senate has also agreed to create a new $20- million-per-year grant program for upgrade of electric transmission.

As I mentioned, though, the bill is not perfect, and the conferees should carefully review several provisions. In title XIII there are a number of sections authorizing investigations that will recommend changes to environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act. Unfortunately, in a number of these areas the Environmental Protection Agency, whose responsibility it is to ensure the air we breath and the water we drink is safe, is not involved in developing or approving these recommendations.

While I proposed amendments to include the Environmental Protection Agency in these sections, not all of changes were adopted. The sections needing amending include: section 1306 Backup Fuel Capability Study; section 1309 Study of Feasibility and Effects of Reducing Use of Fuel for Automobiles; and section 1320, Natural Gas Supply Shortage Report. It is my belief that any studies that involve environmental compliance should include the involvement of the agency whose mission it is to oversee the implementation of these environmental laws.

I am pleased that my Recycling Investment Saves Energy, RISE, provisions were included as section 1545 of the final bill. The provisions will provide almost $100 million in tax incentives for recyclers over the next decade to preserve and expand our Nation's recycling infrastructure. The targeted 15 percent tax credit for equipment used in the processing and sorting of recyclable materials will increase quantity and quality of recyclable materials collected. This national investment is necessary to reverse the declining recycling rate of many consumer commodities, including aluminum, glass and plastic, which are near historic lows. It will also generate significant energy savings as increasing the U.S. recycling rate to 35 percent will result in annual energy savings of 903 trillion Btus, enough to meet the energy needs of an additional 2.4 million homes.

The Finance title includes an amendment that I authored to improve future Federal energy investment and policy decisions. It requires the Secretary of Treasury to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to complete a study and report to Congress on the health, environmental, security and infrastructure externalities associated with energy activities and how they may or may not be affecting revenues, the economy and trade. Such information will dramatically improve our ability to review the costs and benefits of energy legislation and tax policy changes.

I am pleased that my amendment to section 1305, the coal bed methane study, was adopted. My amendment requires that as it studies the issue the Department of Energy consult with States and the Environmental Protection Agency on the impacts of coal bed natural gas production on surface water and ground water resources. This consultation should occur, especially before making recommendations to Congress on changes to the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

This bill does a reasonable job in balancing support for traditional fossil fuels and nuclear power and renewable energy, but I am perplexed by provisions in the Energy bill that provide $1.82 billion in grants for oil, gas and coal industries. With oil hovering around $60 a barrel and gasoline prices at record highs, I question the wisdom of providing additional subsidies for oil and gas exploration and production. While Americans pay more at the pump, multinational oil companies continue to report record profits. The bill also waives royalty payments for oil companies drilling in Federal waters and rewards these already profitable companies while depleting the U.S. economy of $100 million over 10 years.

The bill gives $1.8 billion to the dirtiest powerplants to build new coal powerplants, thereby giving them an economic advantage over powerplants that installed pollution control technologies. I am also concerned about provisions in the coal title that unfairly benefits mining companies with current leases on federal lands by doubling the acreage, 162 to 320 acres, of coal-leased lands; removing the 40-year limitation for leases; and doubling the time (from 10 to 20 years) current leaseholders can pay advanced royalties. These provisions will have the most significant impact on the Powder River Basin where three mining companies dominate current production. I question the wisdom in subsidizing these fossil fuel industries that will only continue to encourage our Nation's dependence upon these polluting and expensive energy sources.

I also urge the conferees not to include the Leaking Underground Storage Tank, LUST, reform provisions in the final bill. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is actively considering these issues and has planned a hearing for July 2005. Our Committee's actions led the Senate to enact bipartisan comprehensive LUST reform legislation last Congress by unanimous consent. Adding LUST reform onto the Energy bill would needlessly bypass our legislative consideration and prevent this issue from getting the careful attention that it requires.

The LUST provisions of the Senate's Energy bill, section 210, are problematic. Most significantly, the section raids the LUST Trust Fund and diverts dollars from their intended purpose--cleaning up contamination from leaking USTs. Without increasing the amount of money to be appropriated to the States, the provision expands the eligible uses of the LUST Trust Fund to pay for cleanup of spills from non-UST sources, such as pipelines, cars, and above ground storage tanks. In a letter to Rep. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin on May 7, 2003, former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman opposed these provisions because they ``would change the historical scope of the program, and could stress the Agency's ability to adequately address releases from USTs.''

I am concerned because this section will go to conference with the House-

passed LUST provisions that also contain significant flaws. The House provisions add a new periodic inspection requirement for USTs that is weaker than the 2-year minimum inspection frequency recommended by EPA and the 3-year minimum requirement recommended by the Government Accountability Office. For example, a tank last inspected in 1999 wouldn't need to be inspected again for over a decade. In addition, the House delivery prohibition provisions may preempt existing authority in 24 States. Finally, the provisions requiring secondary containment within 1,000 feet of existing community water systems includes an exemption that ignores prevention in favor of expensive cleanup.

So we have our work cut out for us. Today, the Senate is passing a good bill that needs some work in conference, but not a substantial overhaul or weakening. To retain my support the conferees need to prevent substantial modifications to this bill, resist the addition of controversial items added in the House-version of H.R. 6, avoid substantive modification to core titles of the bill, limit adjustments to the bill's fiscal scope and cost, and consider additions of provisions to provide energy security.

This is a good effort to develop energy legislation for America, which is a goal widely shared in both Houses of Congress. It is my hope that conferees seek this year to reach consensus on issues such as: national electricity reliability standards, the use of renewables, the phase out of methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, and production of suitable oxygenate replacements, and the fiscally responsible extension of needed energy tax provisions. With this bill I am supporting today we send them a good template to achieve that goal.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues on our efforts to pass an energy bill through the Senate that does not include exemptions for the oil and gas industry from drinking water and clean water protections. Section 327 of H.R. 6 as reported contains an exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act for the practice of hydraulic fracturing. Section 328 of H.R. 6 contains an exemption for the oil and gas industry from obtaining stormwater discharge permits under the Clean Water Act, rolling back fifteen years of environmental

protection. These efforts to weaken the protections applied to our Nation's waters should be stricken from the bill as the conferees on H.R. 6 work to resolve the differences between the two bills.

Over half of our Nation's fresh drinking water comes from underground sources. Hydraulic fracturing occurs when fluids are injected at high rates of speed into rock beds to fracture them and allow easier harvesting of natural oils and gases. It is these injection fluids, and their potential to contaminate underground sources of drinking water, that are of high concern. In a recent report, the EPA acknowledged that these fluids, many of them toxic and harmful to people, are pumped directly into or near underground sources of drinking water. This same report cited earlier studies that indicated that only 61 percent of these fluids are recovered after the process is complete. This leaves 39 percent of these fluids in the ground, risking contamination of our drinking water.

In June of 2004, an EPA study on hydraulic fracturing identified diesel as a ``constituent of potential concern.'' Prior to this, EPA had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with three of the major hydraulic fracturing corporations, whom all voluntarily agreed to ban the use of diesel, and if necessary select replacements that will not cause hydraulic fracturing fluids to endanger underground sources of drinking water. However, all parties acknowledged that only technically feasible and cost-effective actions to provide alternatives would be sought.

Litigation over the last several years has resulted in findings that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated as part of the underground injection control program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Yet, EPA indicated in a letter in December of 2004 that they have no intention of publishing regulations to that effect or ensuring that state programs adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing.

I will include our letter to EPA dated October 14, 2004, and their response dated December 7, 2004, in the Record.

We need to be moving in the right direction--taking steps to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is appropriately regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. I have introduced S. 1080, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005 to ensure that the practice of hydraulic fracturing is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act through the Underground Injection Control, UIC, Program. I would like to thank Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, and Lieberman for co-sponsoring that bill. The House energy bill takes steps in the wrong direction--exempting hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

I urge the conferees of this energy bill to strike section 327 of the House-passed energy bill. By striking this language, the conferees will help to ensure that the drinking water enjoyed by all Americans is not damaged through the process of hydraulic fracturing.

This exemption for hydraulic fracturing is not the only step backwards that the House energy bill takes. Section 328 of the bill exempts the oil and gas industry from stormwater protections in the Clean Water Act.

Stormwater runoff is a leading cause of impairment to the nearly 40 percent of surveyed U.S. water bodies that do not meet water quality standards.

Currently, the oil and gas industry is regulated under Phase I of EPA's stormwater regulations which requires National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permits for medium and large municipal storm sewer systems and eleven, 11, categories of industrial activity, including construction sites disturbing more than 5 acres of land. In 1999, EPA adopted the Phase II permitting requirements, effective March 10, 2003, covering small municipal separate stormwater systems and construction sites affecting one to five acres of land. However, EPA extended the Phase II permitting deadline to June 12, 2006 for only the oil and gas industry.

Now, section 328 of the House energy bill completely exempts the oil and gas industry from compliance with both Phase I and Phase II of the NPDES stormwater program.

This action will adversely impact water quality. Oil and gas construction activities require companies to undertake a number of earth disturbing activities, including: clearing, grading, and excavating. Oil and gas site development may also include road construction to transport equipment and other materials, as well as pipeline construction. The stormwater pollution created from these activities can be devastating to the environment.

According to the EPA, over a short period of time, stormwater runoff from construction site activity can contribute more harmful pollutants, including sediment, into rivers, lakes, and streams than had been deposited over several decades. Sediment clouds water, decreases photosynthetic activity, reduces the viability of aquatic plants and animals; and ultimately destroys animals and their habitat. Sediment rates from cleared and graded construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times greater than those from agricultural lands and one-thousand to two-thousand times greater than those from forest lands. Other harmful pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction sites include phosphorous and nitrogen, pesticides, petroleum derivatives, construction chemicals, and solid wastes that may be mobilized when land surfaces are disturbed.

More than 5,000 cities, towns, and counties and eleven, 11, industrial sectors are required to obtain NPDES stormwater permits. Large oil and gas construction sites covered under the Phase I stormwater program have been taking action to reduce the impact of sediments and pollutants on water quality since 1990. In 2005, GAO reported that over a one-year period, 4,330 oil and gas construction sites obtained Phase I stormwater permits in three of the six largest oil and gas producing states. In 20 the Warren County Conservation District submitted information to EPA indicating that 70 percent of the oil and gas projects they inspected between 1997 and 2002 were in violation of Phase I permit conditions. If this amendment is adopted, these actions will no longer be required. In FY 2002/2003, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation estimated that they would review 400 engineering plans as part of the stormwater permitting process. The House provision would exempt these sites from 15-year-old requirements to reduce the pollution they send into surrounding waters through stormwater discharges.

The environmental impact from this amendment is even more severe when you factor in the approximately 30,000 oil and gas ``starts'' per year that EPA anticipates could be covered by the Phase II stormwater regulation. EPA is currently reviewing the impact of the regulation on these sites. Adopting this amendment would circumvent this review process and exempt thousands of sites from taking action to protect water quality.

Section 402(l) of the Clean Water Act contains a limited exemption for specific types of uncontaminated discharges from specific types of oil and gas sites from stormwater permit requirements. The language of the Act and the legislative history of this section indicate that when adopted, section 402(l) was intended to give a narrow exemption for specific circumstances in the oil and gas industry that did not include construction activities at every oil and gas--related site.

I urge the conference committee on H.R. 6 to reject the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act exemptions included in the House energy bill. These provisions represent a major step backward in efforts to protect water quality and could pose a direct threat to the safety of drinking water supplies. Should these exemptions be included in the final conference report, we will see our Nation's water quality standards go down the drain.

I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced letters in the Record.

Mr. President. I thank Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus and the other members of the Senate Finance Committee for agreeing to my recycling amendment, which I call the Recycling Investment Saves Energy, RISE, provisions. These provisions were added to the tax title of the energy bill last week and have now been incorporated into the Energy bill as section 1545 of H.R. 6.

The current Senate Energy bill contains important provisions to promote the use of energy savings in vehicles, appliances, new homes, and commercial buildings. As we move forward with fostering energy efficiency, we must not neglect recycling. Recycling should be an integral component of our nation's energy efficiency strategy.

The RISE provisions will create jobs, increase productivity, and conserve energy by establishing a tax credit to preserve and expand America's recycling infrastructure. Specifically, the provisions establish a 15 percent tax credit for the purchase of qualified recycling equipment used to sort or process packaging and printed materials, such as beverage containers, cardboard boxes, glass jars, steel cans and newspapers.

The tax credit could be claimed by material recovery facilities, manufacturers or other persons that purchase recycling equipment that sorts or processes residential or commercial recyclable materials, even if such equipment also is used to handle material from industrial facilities.

This national investment in our recycling infrastructure is necessary to reverse the declining recycling rate of many consumer commodities, including aluminum, glass and plastic, which are near historic lows. For example, 55 billion aluminum cans were wasted by not being recycled in 2004, which represents approximately $1 billion of aluminum lost to industry. The recycling rate of paper is estimated to be roughly 50 percent, glass containers 35 percent, and PET plastic bottles less than 20 percent.

The energy savings from greater recycling are significant. Increasing the recycling of containers, packaging and paper could save the equivalent energy output of 15 medium-sized power plants on an annual basis. Recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum for its virgin source. Increasing the U.S. recycling rate to 35 percent would result in annual energy savings of 903 trillion BTUs, enough to meet the annual energy needs of 8.9 million homes.

Due to the diminishing quantity and quality of available recyclable materials, many companies are not able to obtain the volume of quality recycled feedstock needed to meet demand. This

new economic challenge makes it even harder for recycled products to compete in the marketplace. For example, two Michigan plastic recycling facilities recently closed, affecting 100 jobs, as a result of inconsistent supply of recycled plastic. Similarly 17 percent of the recycling capacity at U.S. paper mills has been shut down, in part due to insufficient quality recyclable materials. One leading glass manufacturer also reports that they are able to obtain only a small fraction of the volume of recycled glass that their facilities can use.

In some cases, recyclers have been forced to shut down their operations in the United States and relocate to other countries due in part to insufficient or poor quality recycled feedstocks. This is particularly unfortunate as, on a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables are estimated to sustain 10 times more jobs than landfilling or incineration.

The RISE provisions aim to reverse the declining recycling rate and resulting energy loss by incentivizing greater collection of quality recyclable materials. The bill would expand collection efforts by making innovative technology more affordable, such as reversible vending machines that collect and process empty containers. It could also be used to finance equipment at recycling collection centers.

This targeted tax credit would address quality concerns by reducing the barriers hindering investment in optical sorting and other state of the art equipment needed at material recovery facilities. By reducing material loss and improving quality, RISE will increase both the quantity and quality of recycled feedstock available to manufacturers.

Reducing the barriers to recycling also serves a number of environmental goals, including lessening the need for new landfills, preventing emissions of many air and water pollutants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulating the development of green technology. But most importantly, recycling helps preserve resources of our children's future. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support these provisions.

Mr. President, last night the Senate narrowly defeated the Kerry amendment No. 844, sense-of- the-Senate resolution on climate change. I was unable to be present for the vote, but I strongly supported this sense of the Senate. The United States has consistently failed to constructively engage in international discussions in a manner consistent with our obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or even under a basic good neighbor policy. The Bush administration policy on global warming is ineffective, unproductive, and irresponsible.

The administration's voluntary approach and efforts to address global warming have been underfunded and will not produce real emissions reductions in the timeframe necessary. Fortunately, many of the States have taken up the mantle of leadership, since there is a tremendous vacuum in the White House. By reversing his pledge to control carbon dioxide from powerplants, walking away from the Kyoto Protocol, and now snubbing British Prime Minister Tony Blair's request for assistance from the United States on this critical climate change problem, the President is reneging on this Nation's responsibility and opportunity to be a world leader.

Carbon dioxide levels have never been higher and the United States disproportionately contributes to the global warming problem. We need to reengage with the world in producing a binding global plan that reduces greenhouse gases below levels that would cause dangerous interference with the Earth's climate.

The administration and the world should pay close attention to the passage of the Bingaman-Specter resolution that committed the Senate to adopting legislation containing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide. This is an important resolution and it should serve as a wakeup call to the administration and those among the carbon-intensive industries. We must shoulder our moral responsibility to reduce the risks of global warming.

Mr. President, I thank the bill managers, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, for agreeing to accept my amendment in the managers' package that was agreed to last night by unanimous consent. My amendment directs the Architect of the Capitol to study the feasibility of installing energy and water conservation measures on the rooftop of the Dirksen building, specifically the roof area above the cafeteria in the center of the building.

Today, all that exists is open space in the center of the building. My amendment will assist the Architect in obtaining information that will allow this space to be used in a more efficient manner and save taxpayer dollars.

During debate on the energy bill, the Senate has heard numerous arguments on the importance of conserving energy. In August of 2003, nearly 50 million people in the Northeast and Midwest were affected by a massive power outage. This event emphasized the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather- related outages. Failure to maintain a reliable grid had a huge impact on our Nation's economy, businesses, and individuals' everyday lives.

It is vital, then, that we here in the Senate do our part and put measures in place to make the Nation's Capitol a more secure and sustainable user of electricity. The Capitol Complex is largely dependent upon the electrical grid for power. Our daily operations should not be compromised by grid failure.

My amendment moves us forward in the right direction. Technology already exists to ensure that our operating systems can continue to operate despite loss of a main power supply. By creating onsite generating capacity through the installation of cogeneration equipment at the power plant and using solar powered equipment, like photovoltaic panels, we could produce energy to operate essential systems during a blackout or significant loss of power. We can start slowly by powering emergency lighting and notification systems in hallways so the occupants know how to exit the building safely or upgrade the electrical generating capacity of the complex. Technology is only getting better. My amendment asks the Architect of the Capitol to explore the use of this new technology to ensure that the Nation's Capitol always has reliable power.

In addition, this new technology also has the potential to provide significant savings in the Capitol's operating budget. We are all looking for ways to save the taxpayers money and reduce the Nation's deficit. We have the opportunity today to set an example and practice what we preach. As Members of Congress, we can educate ourselves and our staff on the benefits of energy efficiency, and see first hand the savings it can generate. The Nation's Capitol can join those already utilizing this technology and help encourage others to adopt it as well.

My amendment requires a feasibility study be conducted to look at the Dirksen building rooftop, including the open space in the center of the building directly above the cafeteria. The study will focus on more efficient use of the space while providing energy and water savings to the Capitol Complex.

I envision a wonderful park and garden area that Members and staff can actually use. These gardens would not only provide a beautiful environment by utilizing native plants, but they would also reduce energy use, and provide insulation for the building to reduce heat and energy loss.

These gardens would also provide a collection system for rainwater to limit the amount of stormwater runoff in the area. This collected water could be utilized for basic plumbing, watering the vegetation, or even the fire sprinkler systems; thereby reducing the use of water in the Capitol Complex.

Installation of technology, like photovoltaic panels, could collect the rays of the sun and provide energy to the building. These can be installed on the rooftops of our buildings in many different areas. These panels are now made to blend into any environment

There is even technology that exists to funnel natural daylight into the cafeteria in the basement. Imagine enjoying natural daylight as you consume your lunch or hold that quick meeting. Preliminary studies show that exposure to daylight improves worker productivity and results in less absenteeism due to illness.

The Architect of the Capitol is currently updating the master plan for the

Capitol Complex. This small project fits into that plan. The Architect is making great strides to update our operating systems with newer and efficient technology with sustainable features. I appreciate his efforts and encourage him to continue doing so.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank a former staffer who helped me develop this great idea, Mary Katherine Ishee. Mary Katherine was creative enough to look beyond the barren view from the committee offices on the fourth floor of the Dirksen building and realize the opportunity it presented.

It is about time we bring our home, the Capitol Complex, up to date with the rest of the world. This language is a step in that direction. We have the potential to use the latest technology to save energy, address security concerns, conserve our resources, and make more efficient use of this space.

We will all benefit from a wonderful, efficient, and useful park in the middle of the Dirksen building, and the taxpayers will benefit from our reduced energy and water use in the form of lower utility bills. I am very pleased that this measure has been added and I hope it will be retained by the conferees.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman for adopting my amendment No. 774, as part of the Senate Energy bill. The amendment authorizes up to $20 million a year for 7 years for the establishment of a new Department of Energy grant program to aid local governments, municipal utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and not- for-profit agencies. The cost of repairing transmission lines is proving particularly difficult for small communities in Vermont and across America.

I became interested in creating such a program due to the challenges that communities in my State are facing with respect to the upgrading and siting of transmission and distribution lines. For example, residents in Lamoille County, VT, have been struggling to find ways to expand the transmission system to accommodate the demands of a growing tourism industry without overly burdening local residents with the cost of such an upgrade. Currently, the transmission system that delivers electricity to this area of my State is at peak capacity, leaving the local community in jeopardy should a single event like a fallen power line or damage to a key piece of equipment occur.

Not only must communities afford the costs of the infrastructure itself, but also the costs of integrating these new technologies into the rural landscape in a way that does not destroy their scenic quality and protects their lifestyle.

These grants will help rural communities meet these needs. They can be used for increasing energy efficiency, siting or upgrading transmission lines, or providing modernizing electric generating facilities to serve rural areas. Under the generation grants portion of the program, preference will be given to renewable facilities such as wind, ocean waves, biomass, landfill gas, incremental hydropower, livestock methane, or geothermal energy.

By adopting my legislation as part of this Energy bill, small electric cooperatives and local governments in Lamoille County, VT, will be eligible to apply for Federal grants to construct new facilities and transmission upgrades. This is a good amendment and it should be retained by the conferees.

Mr. President, last night the Senate defeated amendment No. 961 that would have banned the siting of windmills in many areas in the lower 48 States and made them ineligible to receive Federal tax subsidies. Had I been present to vote, I would have opposed this amendment. In my 30 years in Congress, I have been a strong proponent of renewable energy sources including wind power. I am very optimistic about the role wind energy can play in satisfying a growing proportion of this Nation's energy needs.

If the objective of this amendment was to protect scenic qualities of America's lands and shorelines, it did not achieve that goal. The amendment only targeted the siting of windmills within 20 miles of Federal public lands, but did not address the siting of coal-fired powerplants and other energy sources that have far greater impacts to our public lands. Just look at the impacts that air pollution blowing in from coal-fired Midwest powerplants is currently having on the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Shenandoah National Park, and the protected areas in the beautiful green mountains of Vermont.

This amendment also failed to treat all public lands and wildlife refuges equally. As ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over our Nation's wildlife refuges, I was concerned that, had this amendment been approved, no wind turbine situated anywhere near Federal lands in the lower 48 States would have been eligible to receive Federal tax subsidies, thereby severely limiting the expansion of wind power in the United States. Oddly, this amendment specifically exempted some other federally protected areas such as coastal wildlife refuges in Louisiana and Alaska. By defeating this amendment by a wide margin, the Senate sends a strong message that wind power has a role to play in satisfying this Nation's energy needs.

Madam President, in my many years of public service, I have always tried to push our national Government forward on a greener, more sustainable path. That is the path that Vermont has chosen, and that is the way that seems to be most sensible to me. I have worked hard to promote recycling, efficiency, renewable energy, alternative fuels, conservation, and in general the wise and sensible use of our energy resources.

I consider wasting energy a symptom of bad management and economic inefficiency. It also strikes me as an inconsiderate and irresponsible behavior that visits the sins of one generation upon the next. That is what this debate is about. What will we leave our future generations if our actions and vision are too shortsighted and wasteful? We, the United States, have wasted more energy than any other country or civilization on Earth, even as we have built the Nation into an economic and technological superpower.

America's incredible growth through energy has not been cost free. We are dangerously dependent on foreign sources of petroleum. Public health has suffered and still suffers from pollution from fossil fuel combustion. But perhaps the most costly in the long run to our economy, the public health, national security, and the quality of life for generations to come is our continuously growing greenhouse gas emissions. These carbon emissions are the product of our vast inefficiency in producing and consuming energy.

Right now, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are still at an alltime

high. According to credible scientists, that level has not been higher at any time in the last 420,000 years. The United States can take the blame for approximately 40 percent of the total carbon loading now in the atmosphere, and we are adding more than our share every year.

We have a moral responsibility to remedy that. We have a chance in this Energy bill to begin making reductions in our emissions. Congress must lead on this issue because there is a tremendous vacuum in this administration. The President and the Vice President would prefer that we stick our heads in the sand and hope that it all will go away. Voluntary measures are useless against a problem of this scale. We must use taxes or a market-based program, such as a cap-and-trade program, that will motivate American ingenuity and innovation. We must be aggressive in funding domestic and international programs to decarbonize our energy supplies. We must use trade opportunities and negotiations to export energy-efficient American products and services. We have a choice in this bill. We can defer action, letting the problem get worse and more costly with each passing year, or we can act now to reduce our wasteful global warming emissions.

My colleagues should remember that generations to come will look back at the climate votes on this bill. If we do not act responsibly, they will know who to blame for the sea level rise that will threaten their communities, the extra intensity of hurricanes, the loss of glaciers, or more frequent heat waves and floods. They will know who wasted the chance to do the right thing for them in the future.

The Senate must adopt strong legislation that reduces our greenhouse gas emissions. No major energy policy bill will get my support without it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have decided to support the McCain- Lieberman amendment to H.R. 6 as an important step forward on combating global warming. However, I do so with significant reservations about the new language in this amendment providing additional Federal subsidies to the nuclear power industry.

I am especially concerned about the potential amount of the loan guarantees provided, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, and the possibility that any new nuclear facilities constructed could default on those loans. If, for any reason, the stream of revenue from auctioned credits is insufficient to cover the maintenance or clean-up costs of any facilities that default on such loans, then those costs and liabilities might end up in the Federal taxpayers lap. And we all know about the hundreds of billions of dollars in costs that taxpayers face because of the problems in the Departments of Energy and Defense nuclear weapons complex. That type of exposure seems unwise at best.

This language was not in S.342, the Climate Stewardship Act, which I cosponsored and support, and I advised the sponsors of the amendment not to include it in this amendment. But, unfortunately, it is here in front of the Senate and the only options are yes or no. Senators know that there is already very substantial Federal involvement in support of nuclear power, from the Price-Anderson insurance program to the civilian waste repository program. It makes very little sense to me to pile further Federal dollars on top of an already rich web of support. This is particularly true since the Finance title of this legislation provides additional subsidies for new nuclear power generation.

There is at least one other reason that nuclear power does not need additional support. There is no other source of electricity that will obtain a greater advantage in a carbon constrained world than nuclear power. This kind of legislation immediately levels the competitive playing field for nuclear power and investments as compared to conventional electricity generation that is more carbon intensive.

The fastest, quickest and most economically efficient way to encourage development of and investment in new zero-emission generation is to tax or cap greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Government should be a strong partner in supporting such research and investment and directing it toward the goal in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That goal is stablization of atmospheric concentrations of manmade greenhouse gases at levels that will prevent dangerous interference with the global climate system.

Without such an organizing goal, our Nation's climate research plan and energy subsidies and programs are simply a loose affiliation of ineffective and misdirected efforts. Unfortunately, that is the administration's preference. They prefer not to tackle this gravely important issue with a constructive and assertive international role or with a responsible domestic focus that will reduce greenhouse gases now or anytime within the time window necessary.

I applaud the Senators from Arizona and Connecticut for continuing their efforts to set and reach this goal. I encourage them to remember my comments about nuclear subsidies if and

when this issue comes before the Senate again. I would also like to commend Senator Bingaman for his efforts to work on an additional bipartisan proposal inspired by the National Commission on Energy Policy.

Mr. President, I want to address some statements made last week, during the debate on the Bingaman amendment No. 791, regarding community acceptance of renewable energy in Vermont. After I left the floor, one Senator tried to make a point in opposition to the creation of a national renewable portfolio standard by referencing some opposition to a wind power project in Vermont. I want to set the record straight: though we have had some siting issues, Vermonters overwhelmingly support renewable energy over nuclear, coal, or natural gas.

The Senate should not confuse local concerns about the appropriate location for wind power siting in Vermont as a monolithic objection to any new renewable energy in my State. In fact, the views are contrary to such a conjuncture, even in the case of wind power. Numerous polls throughout the last decade have consistently shown that Vermonters support wind energy. In fact, a survey in March 2004 found 74 percent of respondents said they would consider wind turbines along a Vermont mountain ridge either beautiful or acceptable. The same survey found 83 percent of Vermonters choose renewable energy from wind, solar, hydro and wood as preferable to other energy sources.

Lawrence Mott, Chair of Renewable Energy Vermont, which commissioned the energy poll said, ``It's clear, Vermonters want more renewable energy, including wind turbines, and that they find installation on ridgelines very acceptable.''

Vermont's history with wind power goes back to the turn of the century when farmers used windmills to pump

drinking water from their wells. One of the first great experiments in converting wind to energy was conducted atop a peak in Vermont called Grandpa's Knob in Castleton, Vermont. It was, at the time, the world's largest wind turbine and produced 1.25 MW with the first synchronous electric generator. I recall visiting this wind turbine with my grandfather, an architect, and we marveled at its beauty and ingenuity. It was the first time energy from a wind turbine was interconnected to the utility grid.

Vermont's interest in wind power has continued to grow since then. Just look at Green Mountain Power's wind farm in Searsburg, Vermont. Eleven wind turbines generate enough electricity to power more than 2,000 homes, reducing toxic air emissions by 22 million pounds compared to the impacts if that amount of electricity had been produced through combustion of fossil fuels.

Vermont has a tremendous capacity for wind power, as several of my colleagues have demonstrated with wind maps produced from the U.S. Department of Energy. Industry representatives in Vermont envision a handful of wind farms scattered about Vermont producing enough electricity to power about 50,000 homes, which would account for about 10 percent of the State's electricity needs.

Last week, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas signed a new renewable energy bill into law. He did so at the manufacturing plant of Northern Power Systems, a world leader in off-grid power systems. Northern Power is about to ship seven 100-kilowatt wind turbines to three communities in remote western Alaska, and the Governor used a 31-foot-long blade from one of these turbines as his writing table.

Clearly, Vermont's Governor and Vermont's legislators see the value of renewable energy. A large majority of Vermonters support wind energy and renewable energy. And I am very optimistic about the role wind energy can play in satisfying a growing proportion of this Nation's energy needs.

Last week the Senate defeated an important amendment that would have helped set this nation on a course to significantly reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It is unfortunate that a majority of my colleagues did not see fit to put the U.S. on the right course--to break our addiction to foreign oil.

H.R. 6 requires a 1 million barrel a day oil saving goal. Unfortunately, this goal would actually result in more oil being imported, not less. In fact, the U.S. will still be importing 14.4 million barrels a day under the underlying bill's goal. Slowing down the increased rate of consumption alone is not enough. We should be setting an ambitious goal that actually reduces imported oil, not a goal that will result in more oil being imported.

Instead, the Senate refused to set a national goal to reduce the Nation's addiction to foreign oil. The Cantwell amendment would have established that goal--to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent by 2025. By turning our backs on this goal, we are sending the wrong message. Reducing our addiction to foreign oil is essential to the economic security of our Nation. We cannot continue to rely on unstable foreign countries for the energy that runs the economic machine of this Nation.

Fluctuating energy prices and instability in the Middle East once again are prompting calls for energy independence for the U.S.

Federal efforts to ensure freedom from fluctuations in energy prices have been advocated by every President, both Republican and Democrat, since 1973 and the infamous oil boycott. As Americans we count on energy to protect our security, to fuel our cars, to provide heat, air conditioning and light for our homes, to manufacture goods, and to transport supplies. In all of these needs, we, as consumers, pay the price for fluctuations in the global energy market.

Reducing our reliance on foreign oil is essential and the most basic step we need to take to address this crisis. The Cantwell amendment would have resulted in about 7.6 million barrels per day less oil being imported in 2025. Those savings are equivalent to the amount of oil the U.S. currently imports from Saudi Arabia. We can and should stop the oil cartels from controlling the future of this Nation.

In addition, I believe setting an oil saving goal could have beneficial effects on our air quality. Since a vast majority of current oil consumption is from the transportation sector, I believe setting an oil saving goal would encourage auto manufacturers to voluntarily improve efficiency of cars and trucks. As our population continues to grow and more people are driving more miles, it is essential to our air quality to continue to improve fuel efficiency of the vehicles we drive.

As it stands now, this bill does not require auto manufacturers or others in the transportation sector--the plane, train and truck sector--to meet corporate average fuel economy standards. I believe increased fuel economy standards can and should also be included in this bill. But short of adding new standards, setting this goal would have been a significant step in that direction.

By failing to set an oil saving goal, I think we have failed to state one of the most basic goals of this bill--a real reduction the amount of foreign imported oil.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to deliver my remarks from my seat.

Mr. President, today I speak on Senator Bingaman's amendment to set a national goal to obtain 10 percent of our Nation's electricity from renewable resources. I support this idea. In fact, I have filed an amendment to go one step further--requiring 20 percent renewables by the year 2020.

America needs a national commitment to encourage clean domestic sources of renewable energy. I have been in the Congress for 30 years. I have seen the Nation make tremendous advances in areas ranging from medicine to the Internet. I have even witnessed the Red Sox win the World Series. Yet the Nation literally remains dependent on many of the same powerplants that operated when I first was elected to Congress in 1974.

When I think of the next 30 years, I envision an America where clean domestic renewable energy sources are an integral part of our Nation's electricity generation. As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, obtaining 10 percent of our country's electricity from a renewable energy represents the modest end of what we could achieve. Let me offer three reasons I believe the Nation's commitment to encourage renewable power is needed.

First, renewable power would help consumers by reducing electricity prices. According to data provided by the Bush administration's Energy Department, a renewables requirement would lower consumer energy costs by the year 2020.

The second reason is the benefit to public health and the environment. A renewables requirement would dramatically reduce carbon emissions from powerplants. It would significantly also reduce emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contaminate our water, cause smog and acid rain, and contribute to respiratory illnesses.

Third, a renewable electricity standard would enhance our energy independence and our national security by diversifying our energy supply. As we increase our reliance on natural gas, much of the demand may have to be met by liquefied natural gas shipped to the United States from other countries. It is unthinkable that we should sink to a greater reliance on foreign fuel imports when we have abundant, inexhaustible renewable energy here.

Currently, renewable energy accounts for a little over 2 percent of U.S. electricity generation. But the United States has the technical capacity to generate 4.5 times its current electricity needs from renewable energy resources. The potential is there, but we have to give it the assistance of market incentives, as we have traditionally done for our more established fuel sources.

I urge my colleagues to again demonstrate our strong commitment to renewables and support the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I regret that I am unable to be present for the vote on the Domenici renewable fuels amendment, No. 779. I support this amendment, and I am pleased that a majority of my colleagues do as well. The Domenici amendment makes a significant step toward reducing our Nation's reliance on foreign oil. For 30 years I have been a supporter of renewable energy and alternative fuels, and I support this amendment which will require 8 billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline by 2012.

The Energy Committee's reported Energy bill sought to promote the use of biomass ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen and biogas. I appreciate that effort. But, as we move forward with increased production of these renewable fuels, we must do so in a manner that is environmentally sound.

We cannot separate energy policy from environmental policy. The Senate Energy Committee reported bill encompasses many provisions in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, the only provision in this bill that was actually considered by the Environment Committee is the renewable fuels program. The reason is that boosting the use of ethanol in gasoline has significant Clean Air Act implications, and we must ensure that conforming changes to the Clean Air Act are made to ensure no worsening of air quality. As included in the reported version of the Energy bill, giving the Department of Energy authority for a new billion gallon renewable fuels program does not accomplish our dual objectives of increasing the use of renewable fuels while maintaining our Nation's air quality.

Prior to the Energy Committee consideration of this renewable fuels provision, Senator Inhofe wrote Senator Domenici regarding the need for changes in the Clean Air Act for an ethanol mandate to be effective. The Environment and Public Works Committee has repeatedly approved legislation to make such changes in the Clean Air Act to make the ethanol mandate work and for the environment, air quality and public health to be protected.

The Domenici amendment is basically the same as the measure, S. 606, approved earlier this year by the Environment and Public Works Committee but with a higher ethanol mandate and updated to prevent backsliding on toxic emissions. The amendment phases out the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, within 4 years. This phase-out will be accomplished more safely because refiners will be required to maintain no worse toxic emissions than occurred in 2001-2002. Those were much better performing years than the 1999-2000 baseline in S. 606. The amendment also provides EPA with authority to regulate fuels and fuel additives for the protection, not just of air, but of water resources too. This is an important provision that will allow EPA to take action should another fuel additive prove a threat to drinking water.

In addition, the amendment eliminates the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline--RFG--that was put into the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. EPA is required to issue regulations to ensure that all nonattainment areas use RFG that contributes less to smog. The Agency must also regularly require fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to conduct health and environmental studies and make them public and to update its complex model for vehicle emissions from the outdated 1990 baseline vehicle. Further, governors in the ozone transport region may opt-in to the RFG program for their entire State, not just a nonattainment area. The amendment also sets up an automatic check-back to see what impacts the fuel system changes, the ethanol mandate and the MTBE phase-out will have on health, air quality, gasoline prices and supply, and other factors.

Oil companies began adding MTBE to gasoline as early as 1979 and by 1991, 1 year before the Clean Air Act oxygenate requirement went into effect, oil companies were using more than 100,000 barrels of MTBE per day.

These facts belie the oil companies' argument that Congress made them use MTBE and therefore Congress should stop the lawsuits. It is a well- established fact that oil companies were using MTBE years before the Clean Air Act oxygenate requirement went into effect. The Clean Air Act does not mandate the use of MTBE, and the fact

that there was any oxygenate requirement in the Clean Air Act at all was due in part to oil industry lobbying.

Earlier today there was also a rollcall vote on the Schumer amendment, No. 782. Had I been present, I would have voted in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, was proposing to strike the whole second subtitle, Subtitle B, from the Domenici amendment. While the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, argues that his strike merely eliminates the ``mandate'' of requiring ethanol in gasoline, it does much more. First, the fact that it eliminates a national commitment to use ethanol in gasoline at significant volumes should not be overlooked. Second, the Domenici provision would promote diversification in ethanol production by promoting the development of cellulosic biomass ethanol. This is an important new technology, designed to produce ethanol from wood waste, plant materials, and animal waste, in addition to corn and soybeans. It will allow more States the opportunity to produce ethanol with locally appropriate and available materials.

In addition, to address the concerns of the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, there is detailed language in the part of the Domenici amendment he seeks to strike that would allow States to seek waivers from the use of ethanol in the event that there is disproportionate economic hardship. I think that this is the appropriate way to proceed. High gasoline prices and dependence upon foreign sources of oil are already causing economic hardship, and now is the time to try to get more domestically produced ethanol blended with our gasoline so that we can reduce that dependence.

Though I support removing the liability shield for renewable fuels in Subtitle B of the Domenici amendment, I think that the Schumer amendment is too drastic a tool to deal with the price concerns of his State and moves us away from a serious national commitment to renewable fuels. For those reasons, I would have opposed Senate Amendment 782 had I been present.

I support efforts to increase the use of renewable fuels. I believe it can and should be done in a way that is protective of this country's air, land and water. That means not allowing gasoline to become dirtier. And that means maintaining EPA's role in regulating fuels to improve air quality while protecting current and future drinking water sources and not transferring these authorities to the Energy Department. The Domenici amendment accomplishes those objectives and I am pleased it has been added to the bill.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Great Ape Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2005. Over the past decade I have sponsored legislation to establish and reauthorize programs designated for the conservation of several multinational species including African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinoceros and tigers, and marine turtles.

Throughout my years in Congress, endangered species conservation has been among my highest priorities, but the recent birth of my first grandson lends new strength to my commitment to preserve the natural world for future generations.

The great apes--chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons--constitute a group of 14 primate species that share a high percentage of genetic characteristics with human beings. Among them, certain species have demonstrated the ability to learn human behaviors. Left unharmed, they may live for 30 to 50 years and form complex social relationships. As Dr. Jane Goodall said in a BBC News article in 2002, ``All [great ape species] have minds that can solve simple problems and all have feelings. So it's a moral responsibility to save them from extinction.''

The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that fewer than 100,000 Western lowland gorillas currently remain worldwide. Only 30,000 orangutans remain in Southeast Asia. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whereas more than one million chimpanzees populated the dense forests of Africa in 1960, fewer than 200,000 survive in the wild today.

In regions of Western and Central Africa and Southeast Asia, where populations of these captivating creatures still remain, the continued existence of great ape species will depend upon finding solutions to various complicated threats including habitat destruction, disease, and poaching.

One problem of elevated concern for scientists is the alarming number of new outbreaks of the ebola virus in Africa. As we have become increasingly aware of the substantial risk to human life that ebola and similar viruses pose

in parts of Central and Western Africa, few understand the serious impact that these diseases have on great ape populations. A study published in the journal Nature in 2003 reports that when an ebola outbreak affects a given area, more than 80 percent of all great apes living in that area will die of the disease.

In August 2004, the International Primatological Society released preliminary evidence that suggests that as many as 20,000 Western lowland gorillas may be at risk as the result of a new outbreak of the ebola virus in the Republic of Congo.

Developing vaccines and techniques to prevent the decimation of great ape populations as a result of ebola will require a coordinated effort among conservationists, wildlife biologists, and those responding to human outbreaks. Supported in part by the Great Ape Conservation Fund, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently convened a meeting of experts to begin the process of developing a research and intervention plan. This meeting typifies this kind of collaborative conservation effort that the Great Ape Conservation program was designed to undertake.

The Great Ape Conservation Fund has also played an invaluable role in protecting habitat. One of the first such projects to receive support from the Fund, the Goualougo Triangle Chimp Project in the Republic of Congo, is a success story that stands out among what can often be disheartening news from the frontlines of chimpanzee conservation.

In 1993, scientists first discovered a small population of chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle that had never been hunted and were therefore not afraid of humans. The presence of such chimps is extraordinary given that their habitat coincides with a region that is rife with logging and bushmeat hunting.

With help from the Great Ape program, scientists from the Wildlife Conservation Society produced scientific evidence to document 272 individual chimps and acquired rare video footage of their social interactions. As a result of this study, conservationists convinced the government of Congo to protect the Goualougo chimps and their habitat from the eminent threat of logging and hunting and to cede the Goualougo Triangle to a national park.

Over the course of merely 5 years, the Great Ape Conservation Fund has provided financial assistance for 94 research and restoration projects in 22 countries and leveraged millions of dollars in additional matching and in-kind funds.

My legislation reauthorizes the Great Ape Conservation Fund, which receives its annual appropriation through the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, for 5 years and gradually raises the funding authorization from $5 million for each year to $7 million for fiscal year 2008 and $10 million for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The bill raises the top threshold cap on administrative expenses from $80,000 to $150,000, though I should note that over the past five years, Federal appropriations have yet to bring the cap on administrative expenses to the top threshold amount.

Additional provisions of the bill will expand the variety of conservation projects eligible for assistance to include those that address the root causes of threats to great apes in range states, including the illegal bushmeat trade, diseases, lack of regional or local capacity for conservation and habitat loss due to natural disasters.

The bill also amends an existing requirement in the law that requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually convene a panel of experts. My bill exempts expert panels under this law from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and provide the administrator with greater flexibility to determine when it is appropriate to convene an expert panel.

I remain hopeful that despite the overwhelming challenges that jeopardize the continued survival of great apes, we can do our part to sustain efforts to halt their unnecessary extinction.

Federal assistance for the conservation of rare, threatened and endangered international species through the use of species conservation funds has received bipartisan support from Congress for nearly 15 years. I ask you to please join me in maintaining this longstanding commitment to wildlife protection.

Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Great Ape Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2005. Over the past decade I have sponsored legislation to establish and reauthorize programs designated for the conservation of several multinational species including African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinoceros and tigers, and marine turtles.

Throughout my years in Congress, endangered species conservation has been among my highest priorities, but the recent birth of my first grandson lends new strength to my commitment to preserve the natural world for future generations.

The great apes--chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons--constitute a group of 14 primate species that share a high percentage of genetic characteristics with human beings. Among them, certain species have demonstrated the ability to learn human behaviors. Left unharmed, they may live for 30 to 50 years and form complex social relationships. As Dr. Jane Goodall said in a BBC News article in 2002, ``All [great ape species] have minds that can solve simple problems and all have feelings. So it's a moral responsibility to save them from extinction.''

The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that fewer than 100,000 Western lowland gorillas currently remain worldwide. Only 30,000 orangutans remain in Southeast Asia. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whereas more than one million chimpanzees populated the dense forests of Africa in 1960, fewer than 200,000 survive in the wild today.

In regions of Western and Central Africa and Southeast Asia, where populations of these captivating creatures still remain, the continued existence of great ape species will depend upon finding solutions to various complicated threats including habitat destruction, disease, and poaching.

One problem of elevated concern for scientists is the alarming number of new outbreaks of the ebola virus in Africa. As we have become increasingly aware of the substantial risk to human life that ebola and similar viruses pose

in parts of Central and Western Africa, few understand the serious impact that these diseases have on great ape populations. A study published in the journal Nature in 2003 reports that when an ebola outbreak affects a given area, more than 80 percent of all great apes living in that area will die of the disease.

In August 2004, the International Primatological Society released preliminary evidence that suggests that as many as 20,000 Western lowland gorillas may be at risk as the result of a new outbreak of the ebola virus in the Republic of Congo.

Developing vaccines and techniques to prevent the decimation of great ape populations as a result of ebola will require a coordinated effort among conservationists, wildlife biologists, and those responding to human outbreaks. Supported in part by the Great Ape Conservation Fund, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently convened a meeting of experts to begin the process of developing a research and intervention plan. This meeting typifies this kind of collaborative conservation effort that the Great Ape Conservation program was designed to undertake.

The Great Ape Conservation Fund has also played an invaluable role in protecting habitat. One of the first such projects to receive support from the Fund, the Goualougo Triangle Chimp Project in the Republic of Congo, is a success story that stands out among what can often be disheartening news from the frontlines of chimpanzee conservation.

In 1993, scientists first discovered a small population of chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle that had never been hunted and were therefore not afraid of humans. The presence of such chimps is extraordinary given that their habitat coincides with a region that is rife with logging and bushmeat hunting.

With help from the Great Ape program, scientists from the Wildlife Conservation Society produced scientific evidence to document 272 individual chimps and acquired rare video footage of their social interactions. As a result of this study, conservationists convinced the government of Congo to protect the Goualougo chimps and their habitat from the eminent threat of logging and hunting and to cede the Goualougo Triangle to a national park.

Over the course of merely 5 years, the Great Ape Conservation Fund has provided financial assistance for 94 research and restoration projects in 22 countries and leveraged millions of dollars in additional matching and in-kind funds.

My legislation reauthorizes the Great Ape Conservation Fund, which receives its annual appropriation through the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, for 5 years and gradually raises the funding authorization from $5 million for each year to $7 million for fiscal year 2008 and $10 million for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The bill raises the top threshold cap on administrative expenses from $80,000 to $150,000, though I should note that over the past five years, Federal appropriations have yet to bring the cap on administrative expenses to the top threshold amount.

Additional provisions of the bill will expand the variety of conservation projects eligible for assistance to include those that address the root causes of threats to great apes in range states, including the illegal bushmeat trade, diseases, lack of regional or local capacity for conservation and habitat loss due to natural disasters.

The bill also amends an existing requirement in the law that requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually convene a panel of experts. My bill exempts expert panels under this law from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and provide the administrator with greater flexibility to determine when it is appropriate to convene an expert panel.

I remain hopeful that despite the overwhelming challenges that jeopardize the continued survival of great apes, we can do our part to sustain efforts to halt their unnecessary extinction.

Federal assistance for the conservation of rare, threatened and endangered international species through the use of species conservation funds has received bipartisan support from Congress for nearly 15 years. I ask you to please join me in maintaining this longstanding commitment to wildlife protection.

Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to express my support for Senate passage of S. Res. 39, a resolution of apology for the Senate's failure to pass anti-lynching legislation.

Some may wonder about the need to pass this resolution concerning events that occurred decades ago. I believe it is important that light be shown upon, and a discussion occur, about these horrific events. As the famous saying goes, ``Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.'' There were almost 5,000 documented cases of mob lynching in the United States since the Civil War. It is important to note that many historians believe this number should be doubled to include the undocumented cases that occurred.

Lynchings occurred almost everywhere in the United States, and were in many cases examples of so-called mob justice which thwarted the decisions of or shortcut the American judicial system. Despite the national scope of these events, the Senate refused to pass anti- lynching legislation that would provide greater protection to innocent victims and bring the guilty to justice.

While we cannot reverse the decisions made by previous Senates, we can at the very least, offer our apologies and highlight this shameful period in American history. Only by exposing these terrible events, discussing how they occurred, and learning from them can we hope to avoid repeating them in the future.

Mr. President, I would like to express my opposition to the nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr., to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Pryor has a distinguished legal career. He graduated magna cum laude from Tulane University Law School, clerked for a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, was a law professor at Samford University, and served as attorney general for the State of Alabama. While he deserves recognition for his legal background, that alone is not enough in my estimation to be confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. In my review of Mr. Pryor's statements, actions, and writings, I am concerned that Mr. Pryor's personal opinion, rather than the law, will compel his decisions in some cases.

My areas of concern arise in areas of the law that I have spent my career working to address, including the environment, reproductive rights, and gay rights.

On the environment, for example, Mr. Pryor urged the U.S. Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional Federal efforts to protect wildlife on private lands under the Endangered Species Act. In regard to this case, the lower court stated that Mr. Pryor's constitutional arguments would ``place in peril the entire federal regulatory scheme for wildlife and natural resource conservation.'' The case is Gibbs v. Babbitt.

In another important case, Solid Waste Authority of Northern Cook County v. United States, Mr. Pryor urged the Supreme Court to strike down Federal efforts to protect waters and wetlands that provide habitat for migratory birds. Finally, Mr. Pryor has advocated in testimony before the Senate that States should not be held accountable in court for failing to enforce minimum Federal standards from the joint hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 16, 2002.

On reproductive rights Mr. Pryor in 1997 called the Roe v. Wade decision, ``the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children.'' In a speech during that same year, Mr. Pryor criticized the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by stating that this decision ``preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history: Roe v. Wade.''

Finally, during Mr. Pryor's career he has actively worked to oppose gay rights. In fact, he has gone so far as to seek out cases to file briefs, or spoken out on the merits of such cases, that have no connection to the job he was currently performing. For example, even though Alabama had no similar statute, Mr. Pryor filed an amicus brief in the Romer v. Evans case supporting Colorado's law prohibiting local governments from enacting laws protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination. In addition, despite the fact that the Lawrence v. Texas case did not involve Alabama law, Mr. Pryor's interest was so keen that he petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to participate in the oral argument and filed a brief on the merits of the case.

Some have argued that Mr. Pryor should not be held to all these briefs and statements because he was just doing his job and protecting the rights and positions of his client or employer. However, the problem with this argument is that many of the positions he has taken have not related to the requirements of the job he was performing, but were positions he singularly advocated because he believed in them and sought out cases to express and uphold his beliefs. It is this fact that concerns me and leads me to believe that Mr. Pryor will use his personal beliefs rather than settled law to decide cases.

His actions as a recess appointment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals have not diminished my concern, especially when Mr. Pryor was the deciding vote that prohibited the full Eleventh Circuit to consider the unique Florida law banning gay adoption. Given these facts and Mr. Pryor's history, I opposed limiting debate on his nomination in 2003, and continue to do so today.

Unfortunately, I will be necessarily absent for the votes that will occur related to this nominee. However, I feel it is necessary to express my position on this important nomination.

Mr. President, I would like to express my opposition to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is considered the second highest court in the Nation. This court of appeals, compared to other circuit courts of appeals, has sole jurisdiction over many laws and Federal agency regulations and decisions. Given the limited number of cases the U.S. Supreme Court considers every year, this means the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has the last word on important laws and their interpretation.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown has a compelling life story, but a compelling life story is not enough to be confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. While she deserves recognition for her upbringing and work in the community, I am concerned that Justice Brown's personal opinion, rather than the law, compels her decisions in some cases.

Some other areas of concern I have with Justice Brown's nomination include:

Justice Brown has advocated for a return to the time when the Supreme Court struck down many important economic regulations and workplace laws on constitutional grounds. The case is Santa Monica Beach v. Sup. Ct. of LA County, 1999, dissenting.

Justice Brown has argued that those seeking to enforce the statutory prohibition against disability discrimination are ``individuals whose only concern is their own narrow interest.'' The case is Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 2001, dissenting.

Justice Brown has ignored or misconstrued Supreme Court precedent and legislative language to reach her decisions. The cases are San Remo Hotel v. City-County of San Francisco, 2002, dissenting; Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 2001, dissenting; Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 2004, dissenting.

Justice Brown has stated in a lone dissent concerning the State statute requiring prescription contraceptive coverage that if the corporation's female employees do not like being discriminated against, they are free to find, ``more congenial employment.'' The case is Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 2004, dissenting.

Taken individually, these stances might not be cause for some to oppose this nomination. However, looking at the whole picture I believe there is a pattern of behavior that leads me to conclude that Justice Brown is not qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. For these reasons, I opposed limiting debate on her nomination in 2003, and continue to do so today.

Unfortunately, I will be necessarily absent for the votes that will occur related to this nominee. However, I did feel it necessary to express my position on this important nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Vermont Arts Council and its dedicated support for the arts in Vermont.

The Vermont Arts Council, the only nonprofit State arts agency in the country, was founded four decades ago ``on a simple and powerful premise: that the arts enrich lives and form a vital part of Vermont community life.''

Throughout the years, the Vermont Arts Council has served as Vermont's foremost arts advocate. Its resources are dedicated to the professional development of local artists, and it is a primary source of information about the arts, their impact on Vermont and across the Nation.

Vermont is rich in culture and creativity, and the Vermont Arts Council has played such a vital role in contributing to this environment where artists and arts organizations thrive. The arts and humanities are a powerful force in bringing us together and their presence is to be nurtured and integrated into our communities at every opportunity.

The Vermont Arts Council became a reality 40 years ago thanks to those who understand the important role the arts play in education and in our daily lives. Pauline Billings, who served as one of the original trustees of the council, has worked tirelessly in support of the arts in Vermont. It is so fitting that she is being honored with the council's Lifetime Achievement Award for the Arts. I cannot think of a more deserving recipient, and I welcome this opportunity to acknowledge Polly for her invaluable contributions.

It is with great pleasure that I recognize the Vermont Arts Council as it marks its 40th anniversary and pay tribute to the council's work in helping the arts remain a vibrant force in Vermont. Here is to another four decades of great achievement.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, and Lieberman for working with me to introduce this important legislation, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005.

Over half of our Nation's fresh drinking water comes from underground sources. The process of hydraulic fracturing threatens our drinking water supplies. Hydraulic fracturing occurs when fluids are injected at high rates of speed into rock beds to fracture them and allow easier harvesting of natural oils and gases. It is these injection fluids that are of high concern.

In a recent report, the EPA acknowledged that these fluids, many of them toxic and harmful to people, are pumped directly into or near underground sources of drinking water. This same report cited earlier studies that indicated that only 61 percent of these fluids are recovered after the process is complete. This leaves 39 percent of these fluids in the ground, risking contamination of our drinking water.

Let me share with you the story of Laura Amos, a resident of Colorado who suffers from ill health effects today. In May of 2001, while an oil and gas well was being hydraulically fractured near her home, the metal top of her drinking well exploded into the air. At the same time, her water became bubbly and developed a horrible odor.

For three months, she was provided alternate drinking water by Ballard, later know as Encana, the company that owned the well near her home. It took this long until her water appeared normal again. Laura and her family drank from this well over the next couple of years. It was then that Laura developed a rare adrenal-gland tumor. During this time, Laura began actively investigating the chemicals used during the hydraulic fracturing of a well near her home. She learned about a chemical called 2-BE, which was later linked to adrenal-gland tumors in rodents.

Litigation over the last several years has resulted in findings that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated as part of the underground injection control program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Yet, EPA indicates in writing that they have no intention of publishing regulations to that effect or ensuring that state programs adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing.

I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters to EPA and their responses dated October 14, 2004 and December 7, 2004, be inserted in the Record.

In June of 2004, an EPA study on hydraulic fracturing identified diesel as a ``constituent of potential concern.'' Prior to this, EPA had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with three of the major hydraulic fracturing corporations, whom all voluntarily agreed to ban the use of diesel, and if necessary select replacements that will not cause hydraulic fracturing fluids to endanger underground sources of drinking water. However, all parties acknowledged that only technically feasible and cost-effective actions to provide alternatives will be sought.

Hydraulic fracturing needs to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and it has got to start now. It is unconscionable to allow the oil and gas industry to pump toxic fluids into the ground.

My bill, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005, clarifies once and for all that hydraulic fracturing is part of the Underground Injection Control Program regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

This legislation also bans the use of diesel and other toxic pollutants for oil and natural gas exploration.

Last1y, this legislation requires EPA to ensure that States adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing activities in all States to ensure that companies area adhering to our Nation's laws and conducting business in a manner safe for all Americans.

We need to do the right thing, and take action now to protect our Nation's drinking water supply. According to the oil and gas industry, 90 percent our oil and gas wells will be accessed through hydraulic fracturing. Congress and the EPA have to work together to provide a consistent and safe supply of drinking water for all Americans.

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

Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, and Lieberman for working with me to introduce this important legislation, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005.

Over half of our Nation's fresh drinking water comes from underground sources. The process of hydraulic fracturing threatens our drinking water supplies. Hydraulic fracturing occurs when fluids are injected at high rates of speed into rock beds to fracture them and allow easier harvesting of natural oils and gases. It is these injection fluids that are of high concern.

In a recent report, the EPA acknowledged that these fluids, many of them toxic and harmful to people, are pumped directly into or near underground sources of drinking water. This same report cited earlier studies that indicated that only 61 percent of these fluids are recovered after the process is complete. This leaves 39 percent of these fluids in the ground, risking contamination of our drinking water.

Let me share with you the story of Laura Amos, a resident of Colorado who suffers from ill health effects today. In May of 2001, while an oil and gas well was being hydraulically fractured near her home, the metal top of her drinking well exploded into the air. At the same time, her water became bubbly and developed a horrible odor.

For three months, she was provided alternate drinking water by Ballard, later know as Encana, the company that owned the well near her home. It took this long until her water appeared normal again. Laura and her family drank from this well over the next couple of years. It was then that Laura developed a rare adrenal-gland tumor. During this time, Laura began actively investigating the chemicals used during the hydraulic fracturing of a well near her home. She learned about a chemical called 2-BE, which was later linked to adrenal-gland tumors in rodents.

Litigation over the last several years has resulted in findings that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated as part of the underground injection control program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Yet, EPA indicates in writing that they have no intention of publishing regulations to that effect or ensuring that state programs adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing.

I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters to EPA and their responses dated October 14, 2004 and December 7, 2004, be inserted in the Record.

In June of 2004, an EPA study on hydraulic fracturing identified diesel as a ``constituent of potential concern.'' Prior to this, EPA had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with three of the major hydraulic fracturing corporations, whom all voluntarily agreed to ban the use of diesel, and if necessary select replacements that will not cause hydraulic fracturing fluids to endanger underground sources of drinking water. However, all parties acknowledged that only technically feasible and cost-effective actions to provide alternatives will be sought.

Hydraulic fracturing needs to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and it has got to start now. It is unconscionable to allow the oil and gas industry to pump toxic fluids into the ground.

My bill, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005, clarifies once and for all that hydraulic fracturing is part of the Underground Injection Control Program regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

This legislation also bans the use of diesel and other toxic pollutants for oil and natural gas exploration.

Last1y, this legislation requires EPA to ensure that States adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing activities in all States to ensure that companies area adhering to our Nation's laws and conducting business in a manner safe for all Americans.

We need to do the right thing, and take action now to protect our Nation's drinking water supply. According to the oil and gas industry, 90 percent our oil and gas wells will be accessed through hydraulic fracturing. Congress and the EPA have to work together to provide a consistent and safe supply of drinking water for all Americans.

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

Mr. President, as we stand on the verge of passing the highway bill, I once again praise Chairman Inhofe for his leadership. We would not be at this point without the chairman's persistence and hard work. And I personally thank you and Senators Baucus and Bond for their excellent efforts.

I yield.

We have proved it can be done.

The highway bill before the Senate is important for the Nation.

It will authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs through fiscal year 2009.

This bill will make our roads safer. This bill will reduce traffic congestion. This bill supports mass transit.

This bill will create jobs. This bill will have an impact on every town, every city, and every State.

The legislation includes a provision by Senators Grassley and Baucus that boosts funding in this bill by $11.2 billion or about 4 percent over what the White House has requested.

That funding makes all the difference in allowing us to draft a funding formula that ensures that all States benefit in this legislation.

That funding helps level the playing field for many States that feel they are being treated unfairly at the White House prescribed funding level of $284 billion.

I urge President Bush to reconsider his veto threat against this legislation.

It is a good bill that helps every Sate and will impact every American.

There are no differences between the House and Senate versions of this bill that cannot be overcome with good, honest negotiation, and compromise.

But we should not enter those negotiations with a proverbial ``gun at our head'' with the threat of a veto.

The White House should not enter the negotiations with a ``my way or the highway'' approach.

There is a storm brewing in the Senate of mammoth proportions.

It is a storm I hope we can avoid for the sake of this great institution.

I urge the President and the Republican leadership in the Senate to change the course of this storm.

This bill, and others like it, are too important to get caught in the political hurricane on the horizon.

Despite the gloomy forecast, I remain hopeful we can maintain the momentum we have made on the highway bill and reach a final agreement quickly and fairly.

Smart Growth

This highway bill, although not a perfect bill, is a step forward in the smart growth arena.

We have included some modest provisions in this bill to encourage smart growth, like safer routes for our children to get to school, encouraging more physical activity through walking and biking for all Americans, measures to improve traffic congestion, funding for stormwater, and just plain smart planning.

The Safe Routes to Schools Program helps ensure our children are safer as they walk to and from school.

By improving sidewalks and crosswalks for both pedestrians and bicyclists, we are providing a healthier alternative to riding the bus or using a car. We are encouraging students to get out there and walk or ride their bike to school.

In the 1960s, over 60 percent of our children walked or rode their bikes to school. Today, it is less than 10 percent.

According to the National Institutes of Health, the number of children who are overweight has doubled in the last two to three decades; currently one child in five is overweight. Increasing the opportunities for children to walk or ride their bikes to school can help combat the obesity problem.

I would Iike to see more funding for this important program.

Even we, as adults, need to increase our physical activity. The provision for bicycle and pedestrian safety grants will promote the benefits of walking and bicycling, and how to stay safe while doing so.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, bicycling and walking currently account for nearly 13 percent of traffic fatalities, that is over 5,000 a year. Yet States are spending less than 2 percent of their Federal safety funds on bicycle or pedestrian projects.

The biking and walking programs also help minimize traffic congestion, a common problem of urban sprawl.

The increasing amount of time that Americans spend in their cars in traffic has encouraged manufacturers to supply larger, more comfortable trucks and cars. These huge, gas-guzzling cars and trucks are a symptom of a failure to make our homes and workplaces more accessible to other forms of transportation.

Other provisions that incorporate smart planning, multi-agency coordination, and encourage public input early in the planning process, help ensure that the improvements meet the specific needs of the area. Improved planning also addresses local concerns and makes for more efficient enhancements to the community, without costly mistakes.

Even the Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program provides much needed assistance to our States and local communities by helping them deal with the impacts of highway stormwater discharges.

This important legislation increases our investment in our regional transportation agencies so they can consider the choices that will build stronger and more sustainable regions and local communities.

And, that is what smart growth is all about. Making smart, educated decisions on how to handle the growth of our communities.

Such planning promotes growth that improves the economy, revitalizes neighborhoods, protects farmland and environmentally sensitive areas, and improves public health.

Smart growth offers a range of transportation options, provides parks and play areas for our children, and provides accessible options for those with disabilities. All of these use energy more efficiently and are good for the environment.

Many of the provisions in this bill help ensure that we develop transportation projects in smarter ways.

I hope the conference committee produces an agreement that respects these important resources, be it our historic and cultural assets and parks and protected open spaces.

Since the 1960s, I have been involved in the smart growth debate. As Vermont's attorney general, I drafted what became the first, and is still today, the most comprehensive, State level environmental review regulation in the United States, known in Vermont as Act 250. In 1999, I established the Senate smart growth task force. Today, I serve as cochair, along with my colleague, Senator Levin, on the Senate's bipartisan, multiregional task force for smart growth.

A number of you also serve with us to ensure that we assist those at the State and local levels with the growth of their communities. If you are not already a member, I encourage you to join our task force today to broaden the efforts in the Senate.

Land use and development affects each and every one us, regardless of party affiliation. And with energy prices on the rise, transportation and land use planning are critical tools for conserving energy and promoting more fiscally sound development practices.

The task force needs your help to incorporate smart growth principles into the budget and appropriation processes, to build better relationships with our State and local partners, and work with the administration to support State and local efforts to plan for growth.

Our Nation has only recently begun to recognize that sprawl is unhealthy--whether it is contributing to obesity in America or multiplying the number of roads that are dangerous and unfriendly to pedestrians or harming the habitat of endangered species.

Smart growth is about providing transportation choices, including transit, pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes and paths, and of course, highways and roadways.

This highway bill is a move in the right direction. While funding is limited for these programs, I am encouraged to see provisions like these are moving forward.

In these times of high gasoline prices, Vermonters and all Americans want to know what Congress is doing to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

Constituents who are paying steep prices at the pump want to know that we are working to promote technologies that use gasoline more efficiently.

I would like to talk about some of the provisions of the highway bill and the managers' amendment that have the potential to do just that.

The bill provides additional incentives to use hybrid vehicles on our Nation's highways and the managers' amendment builds on those provisions.

While I think these provisions represent a good initial starting point for important discussions to come in the conference on this bill, I think more can and should be done through this legislation to encourage hybrid use, and to expand their benefits for consumers and the environment.

Some argue that we do not need to do any more to promote hybrid purchasing and use by consumers.

They suggest that the price of gasoline itself has been a strong driver of hybrid purchases. Certainly, in part, that is the case.

At the end of April, the Associated Press reported that the hybrid market has grown by 960 percent since 2000.

New hybrid vehicle registrations totaled more than 8,300 in 2004, an 81 percent increase over the year before.

Even though hybrids still represent less than 1 percent of the 17 million new vehicles sold in 2004, major automakers are planning to introduce about a dozen new hybrids during the next 3 years.

I have personally joined the thousands of Americans, and several other members of this body, in becoming a hybrid owner.

I purchased a Ford Escape hybrid last year.

Simply allowing gas prices to increase is not the best way to promote hybrid use. That is a poor policy solution.

We should also provide significant non-financial incentives to stimulate demand for these vehicles.

One important incentive in the bill before us is to allow these vehicles access to the high occupancy vehicle lanes, or HOV lanes, on our highways.

We will be saving our commuters time, in addition to reducing gasoline use.

In doing so, we need to carefully consider and maintain the other societal benefits of HOV lanes.

Those benefits include: encouraging transit and shared car use, and promoting dedicated alternative fuel vehicles.

Mr. President, our last highway law, TEA-21, gave States the authority to allow what is called a high occupancy vehicle lane, or HOV lane.

Many commuting Americans are familiar with these lanes, and thousands commute into the District of Columbia every day using them.

I want to give my colleagues some of the history behind allowing less polluting vehicles in HOV lanes.

Under TEA-21, if a vehicle was certified under Federal regulations as an ``inherently low-emission vehicle'' it could be used in the HOV lane with only one occupant.

The law authorized States to implement this policy through September 30, 2003, and granted each State the right to revoke this policy if it increased HOV lane congestion.

EPA established the low-emission vehicle standards.

They did so in order to recognize that certain types of fuel and vehicle technologies have low emissions and to encourage their use.

Only vehicles without evaporative fuel emissions meet EPA standards.

Consequently, a vehicle that bums any quantity of gasoline or diesel cannot meet the standards.

That includes hybrid vehicles that operate on a combination of gasoline or diesel and electric batteries.

Vehicles that operate entirely on alternative fuels with no evaporative emissions, such as compressed natural gas, liquified natural gas, or purely

electric vehicles, are the only ones that are able to meet the standards.

We should promote the use of those vehicles.

However, such vehicles are a very small percentage of the on-road fleet, and, as a consequence, few motorists have been able to take advantage of the HOV lane benefit provided in TEA-21.

Since the passage of TEA-21, there has been growing interest among motorists, the vehicle industry, and some States in renewing the HOV lane benefit and expanding it to hybrid vehicles, which are more widely available.

The bill before us includes provisions that would renew and expand the HOV lane exemption for low-emission vehicles.

Specifically, the managers' amendment would allow ``low emission and energy-efficient vehicles'' access to HOV lanes.

The bill would make that access permanent.

A vehicle would qualify as a ``low emission and energy-efficient vehicle'' if it meets EPA's ``Tier II'' emission standards that were phased in beginning in model year 2004.

In addition, EPA would have to certify that the vehicle gets at least 50 percent better fuel economy than a gasoline vehicle in the city or that it is a ``dedicated alternative-fueled vehicle'' as defined in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Current hybrid vehicles are clean enough to comply with the new tier II standards. Some hybrids also meet the threshold for fuel economy ratings in the bill.

This change would result in expanding access to HOV lanes to include hybrid vehicles.

I reassure my colleagues who may be concerned that congestion in HOV lanes might arise as a result of the policy change contained in this bill.

The bill before the Senate requires States that allow hybrids on HOV lanes to establish a program for qualifying and labeling such vehicles, and monitoring and evaluating their use in HOV lanes.

States also would be required to develop policies and procedures for limiting the single-occupancy operation of hybrids if their use led to increased traffic congestion.

While there are benefits to this language, I hope that my colleagues consider strengthening the language.

We should be mindful when we allow single occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes, even if they are hybrids.

The managers' amendment simply implements the tier II emissions standards that were effective last year.

Hybrids easily meet these standards today, so this language has no practical impact.

If it is the determination of Congress to allow hybrids to use the HOV lanes, we should be promoting the most fuel-efficient and cleanest hybrid vehicles on the road. I would like to go further.

This bill takes a good step toward promoting single occupant HOV access for hybrid vehicles.

We make sure that there are only dedicated alternative fuel vehicles in HOV lanes, those that run on 100 percent alternative fuels.

But we need to make sure that we don't overburden our HOV lanes. And we need to make sure that our goals of lowering pollution that we set in our last highway law are maintained.

It is my hope that we do so in the conference on this bill.