Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 10 (Tuesday, January 21, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1171-S1234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 2, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

Amendment No. 67

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, this morning I will be offering an
amendment, together with Senator Lieberman, Senator Jeffords, Senator
Clinton, and Senator Reid, all of whom have worked very hard on this
amendment.
This amendment is about doing a very simple thing: it is about
keeping our air clean so that kids won't have asthma attacks and so
seniors won't have heart attacks and so Americans won't lose their
lives before their time. For months the administration has talked about
massive changes in clean air protections and for months Senators on
both sides of the aisle have said to the administration: Before you go
through with these changes, would you please tell us in detail how
these changes are going to affect our families? In other words, would
you please look before you leap?
We have been asking that question for months, and for months the
administration has refused to answer. On November 22, they went ahead
with their massive changes without telling us how it was going to
affect the health of the American people.
I believe the administration does not want to share these facts
because they are afraid of what the facts will show. They are afraid
people will see what their rule changes will do. When you study these
rules, when you listen to the experts, you will see that they will make
our air dirtier. These rules will add more soot to our cities and more
smog to our national parks. At the end of the day, these rules will
allow more kids to get asthma attacks, more seniors to have heart
problems which land them in the emergency room, and more people will
lose their lives prematurely.
This amendment is a very modest response to these proposed changes.
It does not block the rules forever. It does not put them off for
years. It just says let's put these rules off for about 6 months and
use that time to determine how these changes will affect human health,
how they will affect kids with asthma, senior citizens with
cardiorespiratory problems. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing
to do. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
We are saying let's get a study from the nonpartisan, completely
respected National Academy of Sciences. That is all we are talking
about: 6-month delay to look at these changes to see, before they go
into effect, what effect they will have on the health of the American
people.
The science of pollution is completely clear. Pollution causes heart
and lung problems. It aggravates asthma. It causes the smog that ruins
the view in our Nation's parks. It causes premature deaths.
According to Abt Associates, a nonpartisan research group, just 51
powerplants are responsible for more than 5,500 deaths every year, for
over 106,000 asthma attacks, and for costs to our economy of between
$31 billion and $49 billion. That is only 51 powerplants. If you did
the same study of other industries, the numbers would go up
dramatically.
North Carolina has some of the worst pollution in the country.
According to Dr. Clay Ballantine, a physician in Asheville in western
North Carolina, just living and breathing in western North Carolina
costs 1 to 3 years off the average life of a person. The UNC School of
Public Health, found that in many of our counties 3 in 10 kids have
asthma, which is three times the national average.
Just walking in the Great Smoky Mountains is as bad for your lungs as
breathing in many big cities. When the head of the EPA, Christie Todd
Whitman, visited the Great Smokies last Fourth of July, she could
barely see 15 miles at a place where you used to be able to see 75 to
100 miles. So clean air is a huge priority. It is important for our
kids, for seniors, and for our parks.
This administration has made radical changes in the regulations under
the

[[Page S1172]]

Clean Air Act. This is about a program called New Source Review or NSR.
The basic idea of NSR is simple. Under the Clean Air Act, if someone
builds a new factory, the new factory has to have state-of-the-art
equipment to prevent pollution, but there is a special deal for
factories that were built before 1977. Those factories don't need to
install new pollution controls unless and until their toxic emissions
go up by a significant amount. Only when that happens does the plant
have to install these new controls that others have to meet instantly.
This is what the New Source Review is all about.
There is no question--and all of us believe--that reforming NSR is a
good idea. We ought to do two things: One, we ought to cut red tape,
which is a problem; two, we ought to cut pollution.
Under Carol Browner, EPA Administrator in the Clinton administration,
positive work was done in that direction. But the debate today is not
about those kinds of reasonable and sensible reforms that are in the
best interest of the American people. This debate is about this
administration's package.
There are several glaring problems with that package. First, the
administration developed these rules through a series of secret
consultations with executives from power and oil companies. It would
not have been so bad if the administration had also been talking
secretly to regular patients and kids and doctors about what effect
these changes in the rules would have on their lives and their health.
But there is no evidence they did that. Instead, the administration
focused on one side and favored that side in the changes they made in
the rules.

The second problem is this administration has never explained in any
serious way whether these changes will in fact harm human health,
whether they will cause more pollution, more asthma, or more premature
deaths. For months we have asked for a serious qualitative study, and
for months we have not received that study.
Let me go through a short timetable. On July 16, 2002, at a joint
hearing of the Environmental Committee and the Judiciary Committee,
both Senator Jeffords and I asked Jeff Holmstead, the EPA's top clean
air official, whether he could quantify the effects of this proposal on
a human level. He could not do it then, and the best I can tell, he has
not tried to do it since.
On August 1, 2002, 44 Senators signed a bipartisan letter to EPA
which asks the EPA to conduct a rigorous analysis of the air pollution
and public health impact of the proposed rule changes. Again, they
didn't do it.
On September 3, 2002, I again asked Mr. Holmstead for an analysis of
EPA's proposals. Mr. Holmstead had no new analysis. Instead, he pointed
back to an analysis that had been done 6 years earlier during the
Clinton administration--a different set of proposals, a different
analysis.
The head of the EPA, 6 years ago, Carol Browner, who testified at the
hearing, said the old study proved nothing. But when I asked Mr.
Holmstead if EPA would simply hold off on the new rules until we had a
real study on the effect that these new rules would have on the health
of the American people, he said no.
On November 22, 2002, the administration just went ahead, finalized
the rules without giving any credible evidence on what impact this
would have on human health.
So what we are saying is not complicated. We are saying: Should we
not look before we leap, before we change rules that can affect the
most basic protection for our kids and our families and our parks?
Should we not at least do an analysis of what impact it is going to
have on kids and families and our environment and our parks?
The administration's answer is no. Let's go ahead. I believe that is
their answer because they don't want to know the truth because they are
afraid of what the truth will be.
If you look at these rules, which I have and others have, it is clear
that they will hurt people. Time after time this administration has
twisted proposals made under the Clinton administration to allow more
pollution.
Here is what Ms. Browner said:

The current administration's recent announcement of final
changes to the New Source Review Program abandons the promise
of the Clean Air Act--steady air quality improvements. [These
rules] will allow the air to become dirtier.

Let me repeat that: These rules ``will allow the air to become
dirtier.'' And that means they will allow our kids and our seniors to
get sicker, to die sooner. That is what we are talking about. It is
very basic and fundamental.
Let me give two examples of what these rules will do:
First, the rules change the way pollution levels are calculated.
Under the new source review, a factory has to clean up only if it
increases its pollution level. It matters a lot how we measure the
factory's initial pollution level, what's called the ``baseline.''
Up to now, the rule has been that the baseline is the average for the
last 2 years--that is the basis on which we determine whether there has
been an increase in pollution--unless the company can prove another
period is more representative of recent emissions. But the basic rule
has been that you establish the baseline by looking at the last 2
years. That makes sense.
What this administration proposes doing makes no sense. What they are
saying is instead of using the last 2 years, we let the factory choose
any 2 years out of the last 10. So instead of looking at the last 2
years as a baseline to determine whether emissions have gone up, what
they are saying is we are going to let the factory choose any 2 years
in the previous 10 in order to determine whether emissions have gone
up.
So even if the reality is that their pollution level is quite low
right now, they get to go back a decade and say that pollution is high.
They can even take emissions from accidents and malfunctions and use
those to inflate their baseline. And because they can make pollution 10
years ago look like pollution today, they can pollute even more without
cleaning up.
You don't have to take my word for it. According to internal
documents, career staff at the EPA said that this change would
``significantly diminish the scope'' of the New Source Review. A study
by the Environmental Integrity Project found that at just two
facilities, the new rules would allow over 120 tons of the pollution
into the air. The National Association of State and Local Air
Regulators says that this change ``provides yet another opportunity for
new emissions to avoid NSR.'' So the bottom line is more pollution.
Here is a second example. The new rules contain something called a
``Clean Unit'' exemption. In theory, the exemption should give
companies an incentive to clean up by giving them benefits if they
install state-of-the-art technology. It is a perfectly good idea. But
this administration has provided an exemption as long as the company
installed new equipment anytime during the last 10 years. In other
words, if a company did something good in 1994, they get a free pass to
increase pollution in 2003, 9 years later.
Again, this makes no sense. Again, it will increase pollution. Again,
here is what the State and local air commissioners said. This rule
``would substantially weaken the environmental protections offered by
the NSR program.''
Now, when it comes to the effects of these rules, it is true that the
State administrators could be wrong. The career officials at EPA could
be wrong. I could be wrong. We could all be wrong. The rules could be
OK.
But even if we are all wrong--and I do not believe we are--shouldn't
we get the whole story and get a real answer to the question before
putting our kids and our seniors at risk?
Six months is not a long time to wait in order to get the whole
story. It is far better to wait 6 months than to say to this
administration, go ahead, roll the dice. It is OK. We are willing to
put the lives of our children and seniors at risk, and we are willing
to let this rule go into effect even though we do not know what effect
it is going to have on the health of our seniors and children.
Let me talk for a minute about the broad opposition to these rules.
This administration likes to talk about State flexibility, but these
regulations take flexibility away from the States and forces some
States to lower their protections.
Again, this is the view of the State experts:

The revised requirements go beyond even what industry
requested. . . . Because the reforms are mandatory, they will
impede, or

[[Page S1173]]

even preclude, the ability of States and localities all
across the country to protect the air.
Although our associations believe NSR can be improved. . .
. We firmly believe the controversial reforms EPA is putting
in place . . . will result in unchecked emission increases
that will degrade our air quality and endanger public health.

That is the States. Now listen to the doctors. Over a thousand
doctors from all across the country have urged this administration not
to go ahead with these final rules. These doctors see the effects of
air pollution every day in their practices and in the emergency rooms,
and they warned that ``it is irresponsible for the EPA to move forward
in finalizing new regulations that could have a negative impact on
human health.''
This is not a partisan issue. The State air quality folks are not
partisans. The local air quality folks are not partisans. And then
there's Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group to which 12
past or present former Republican Members of Congress are connected.
Republicans for Environmental Protection recently wrote a letter
supporting my amendment.
They wrote that ``a reasonable delay (of the rules) is necessary in
order to allow independent researchers to investigate how the New
Source Review revisions would affect emissions and the resulting
impacts on public health.'' So Republicans support this amendment as
well.
We will hear people say that protecting the air is too expensive. But
at the 51 power plants I mentioned earlier, premature deaths and asthma
attacks cost our country over $30 billion each year. The costs of
cleaning the air are a small fraction of that amount. So clean air not
only saves lives; it also saves money.
Finally, I want to be very clear about what this amendment does and
does not do. This amendment delays by 6 months the effective date for
the final rules on the New Source Review that this administration has
already announced. This amendment does not touch the proposed rules
regarding so-called ``routine maintenance.''
Now, speaking for myself, Senator Lieberman and Senator Jeffords, all
of whom have worked very hard on this amendment, we understand the
importance of new rulemaking on the definition of ``routine
maintenance.'' We understand that reform of this definition is underway
to allow for greater certainty for the electric industry. It is a good
idea. We are not doing anything in this amendment that affects in any
way the proposed rulemaking on ``routine maintenance.'' In fact, we
believe it is appropriate to take public comment in the rulemaking in
order to develop a rule that promotes energy efficiency, without--and I
emphasize ``without''--allowing the air to become dirtier. A bipartisan
group in this chamber has expressed support for EPA proceeding with a
rulemaking that ``protects human health and the environment while
providing regulatory certainty for the electric utility industry and
other industries.'' We respect their concerns on this issue.
This amendment is about final rules. It is a very modest amendment.
It would delay these rules by about 6 months while we get an honest,
nonpartisan study of what these rules will do to our kids' health and
the environment. It will protect our kids from asthma, our seniors from
heart problems, our parks from smog. This amendment will make sure we
look before we leap. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in
the Record following this statement:
Letter from 44 Senators, dated August 1, requesting an analysis of
the new rules;
Letter from Physicians for Social Responsibility, dated September 27,
opposing the rule changes;
Letter from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officers, dated January 16 of this year, requesting a delay in the rule
changes; and
Letter from the Republicans for Environmental Protection, dated
January 17, 2003, requesting a delay in the rule changes.
There being no objection, the following letters were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.
Hon. Christine Whitman,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Administrator Whitman: The Clean Air Act is a vital
took for protecting the Nation's health and environment,
including our National Parks. With mounting medical evidence
that air pollution causes asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary
disease, and premature death--particularly among children and
the elderly--we need to strengthen clean air protections
whenever possible.
Given our strong commitment to protecting Americans'
health, we believe that the changes you announced on June 13,
2002 to the Clean Air Act's ``New Source Review'' are
extremely troubling. On their face, many of these changes to
NSR--for example, giving factories greater leeway to choose
how their pollution is measured--appear likely to increase
pollution levels. Unsurprisingly, the states' air pollution
control administrators have expressed concerns that the new
regulations will make it more difficult for the states to
attain national clean air standards. Yet as Assistant
Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead admitted at a recent hearing,
EPA now plans to make these changes without having conducted
a full analysis of their impact on air quality and public
health, and without providing a full opportunity for public
notice and comment on the changes EPA is now proposing.
While EPA should be free to pursue thoughtful changes to
New Source Review that reduce regulatory burdens while
strengthening public health protection, we see no reason to
believe that the proposed changes adequately protect air
quality. In fact, because the specific changes proposed have
not been subject to careful study and full public comment, we
have serious concerns that the changes could allow more air
pollution--causing more asthma, more heart and lung problems,
and more premature deaths.
We therefore ask that, before finalizing any of these
changes, EPA conduct a rigorous analysis of the air pollution
and public health impacts of the proposed rule changes and
give the public full opportunity to comment on these changes.
As we are sure you agree, EPA should not finalize a rule that
allows increased air pollution or undercuts the health of any
of America's children or seniors. In the meantime, until the
law is changed, we ask your continued commitment to enforce
the Clean Air Act as it is written.
Sincerely,
John Edwards, Jim Jeffords, Joseph Lieberman, Tom
Daschle, Susan Collins, Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd,
Charles Schumer, Daniel K. Inouye, Joe Biden, John F.
Kerry, Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin, Russell D. Feingold,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jack Reed, Robert
G. Torricelli, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy,
Ron Wyden, Patty Murray, Daniel K. Akaka.
Fritz Hollings, Bill Nelson, Barbara Boxer, Maria
Cantwell, Jean Carnahan, Debbie Stabenow, Mark Dayton,
Barbara Mikulski, Paul S. Sarbanes, Bob Graham, Herb
Kohl, Jon Corzine, Max Cleland, Jeff Bingaman, Carl
Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Lincoln Chafee, Tim Johnson,
Olympia Snowe, Tom Carper.
____

Physicians for

Social Responsibility^',

Washington, DC, September 27, 2002.
Mr. John Graham,
Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Graham: As concerned doctors, nurses, and public
health professionals, we view the health mission of the Clean
Air Act as one of EPA's most important initiatives. We are
therefore writing to express our concern about EPA's proposed
changes to the New Source Review (NSR) program. This program
regulates emissions from new and modified power plants, pulp
and paper mills, refineries and other industrial plants.
For more than a decade, NSR has proved to be an effective
took in bringing polluting industrial facilities into
compliance with the law and cleaning up the air that we
breathe. The EPA has recently proposed changes to the NSR
program that will likely cause the amount of pollution in our
air to increase. EPA plans to move forward with these changes
to NSR without first determining how they will impact health
or the environment. Three separate Senate Committees as well
as public health and environmental advocacy groups have
requested these studies to no avail. Without evidence that
the proposed changes will actually improve air quality,
thereby doing no harm, it is irresponsible for the EPA to
move forward in finalizing new regulations that could have a
negative impact on human health.
Pollution from power plants and other plants regulated
under NSR touches the lives of millions of Americans across
the nation. This pollution is harmful to human health and
sends thousands of individuals to hospital emergency rooms
each month. Study after study shows a link between exposure
to air pollution and health conditions such as respiratory
diseases, asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, cancer,
and even death.

[[Page S1174]]

No changes to NSR should occur without the public being
provided with a comprehensive analysis demonstrating that the
proposed changes to NSR will improve air quality and human
health. In addition the public, especially the public health
community, must have the opportunity to comment on the
analysis and the resulting changes to NSR before any changes
are finalized. We urge you to put the health of Americans
first by upholding NSR provisions that are protective of
public health.
Sincerely,
Hans Tschersich, Kodiak, AK.
Helena Zimmerman, Juneau, AK.
Claude Baldwin, Jr., Hunstville, AL.
Anna-Laura Cook, Northport, AL.
David Reynolds, Birmingham, AL.
Bettina Bickel, Glendale, AZ.
Kenley Donaldson, Casa Grande, AZ.
Sara Gibson, Flagstaff, AZ.
William Martin, Tucson, AZ.
Ardyth Norem, Rio Verde, AZ.
Eric Ossowski, Scottsdale, AZ.
Jen Schaffer, Flagstaff, AZ.
Kamal Abu-Shamsieh, Pasadena, CA.
Sara Acree, Alhambra, CA.
David Adelson, Venice, CA.
Jacob Adelstone, Van Nuys, CA.
Felix Aguilar, Long Beach, CA.
Fereshteh Ajdari, Culver City, CA.
Wayne and Sonia Aller, Granada Hills, CA.
Rodolfo Alvarez, Santa Monica, CA.
Frances Amella, San Francisco, CA.
Selene Anema, San Luis Obispo, CA.
Ruben Aronin, Los Angeles, CA.
Misha Askren, Los Angeles, CA.
Annie Azzariti, Santa Monica, CA.
K. Bandell, Norwalk, CA.
Morris Barnert, Palos Verdes Estates, CA.
Barbara Beatty, Berkeley, CA.
____

State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators, Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials,
Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
Hon. Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Governor Whitman: As you are aware, the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and
the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(ALAPCO) have serious concerns with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) recently promulgated final rule
affecting changes to the New Source Review (NSR) program (67
Federal Register 80186), and with the adverse impact these
changes would likely have on the ability of states and
localities to achieve and sustain clean, healthful air. These
concerns are further compounded by the fact that, for a
number of states across the country, the revised NSR program
is scheduled to take effect on March 3, 2003. Accordingly, we
write to you today, on behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, to
request that EPA extend by one year the effective date of the
final NSR rule revisions. We make this urgent request for
several important reasons.
The regulatory changes to the NSR program are not only
lengthy and far reaching, but also highly complex and
controversial. States that implement the NSR program through
their State Implementation Plan are allowed three years in
which to revise their plans for the new program. However, in
13 states across the nation, EPA has delegated authority for
the federal rules to state and local permitting authorities;
in these ``delegated'' states, the revised NSR program, which
was published by EPA on December 31, 2002, must be
implemented by March 3, 2003. State and local air pollution
control agencies have been working vigorously to study the
new rule; however, gaining full command of the many
intricacies of the regulation, as well as a complete
understanding of the impacts and implications, will take time
and, we firmly believe, cannot be accomplished in the next 45
days.
Further, although the text of the rule revisions has been
published in the Federal Register, EPA has not yet developed
or made available to state and local agencies the complex
text of the federal rule, as revised by the recent changes.
Moreover, EPA has not yet provided, or even scheduled,
training opportunities for states and localities, nor has the
agency developed any guidance on key aspects of the revised
rule. In fact, it is our understanding that EPA regional
office staff--with whom states and localities must work to
revise and update delegation agreements--has not yet received
training on the new rules from EPA headquarters.
STAPPA and ALAPCO understand that EPA would like to make
the final rule available to industry as soon as possible. We
are deeply concerned, however, that a rush to implement the
new rule will result in serious consequences that will
disbenefit state and local implementing agencies, EPA, the
regulated community and citizens alike.
The March 3, 2003 effective date simply does not allow
sufficient time for delegated state and local agencies to
prepare for and execute effective implementation of the new
NSR rule. Accordingly, STAPPA and ALAPCO urge that you take
immediate action to extend the effective date of this new
program by one year, in order to allow time for EPA
development of guidance and training and for the necessary
state and local efforts involved in updating delegation. If
you have any questions, please contact either of us or Bill
Becker, Executive Director of STAPPA and ALAPCO, at (202)
624-7864.
Sincerely,
Lloyd L. Eagan,
STAPPA President.
Ellen Garvey,
ALAPCO President.
____

January 17, 2003.
Dear Senator: REP America, the national grassroots
organization of Republicans for environmental protection,
respectfully requests your vote in favor of Senator Edwards'
amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill, which would
delay implementation of New Source Review rule revisions and
require the administration to conduct a National Academy of
Sciences study of the rule revisions' health impacts.
We believe a reasonable delay is necessary in order to
allow independent researchers to investigate how the New
Source Review revisions would affect emissions and the
resulting impacts on public health. We are greatly concerned
that the administration is rushing to change the rules before
the public and their elected representatives have had a
chance to fully understand the impacts.
More than 170 million Americans live in areas with
unhealthy air quality. Ozone pollution is a serious public
health problem. The interests of children, senior citizens,
and others who are particularly sensitive to air pollution
deserve greater consideration before rule changes are
implemented that could drive up unhealthy emissions.
Please vote for the Edwards amendment so that the federal
government can make better informed decisions on a critical
public health issue.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Martha A. Marks,
President.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Edwards], for himself,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Reid,
proposes an amendment numbered 67.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a study of the final rule relating to prevention
of significant deterioration and nonattainment new source review to
determine the effects of the final rule on air pollution and human
health)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . NEW SOURCE REVIEW FINAL RULE.

(a) Cooperative Agreement.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
to determine, not later than September 1, 2003, whether and
to what extent the final rule relating to prevention of
significant deterioration and nonattainment new source
review, published at 67 Fed. Reg. 80186 (December 31, 2002),
would allow or could result in--
(1) any increase in air pollution (in the aggregate or at
any specific site); or
(2) any adverse effect on human health.
(b) Delayed Effective Date.--The final rule described in
subsection (a) shall not take effect before September 15,
2003.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
restore a little sanity to our Nation's clean air policy. For the past
2 years, I have joined my colleagues on the Environment and Public
Works Committee in requesting an analysis of the health impacts of the
administration's New Source Review rules. We have asked through
letters, through committee questions, through oral questions at
hearings. Yet our requests fell on deaf ears, or shall I say on dead
air, and the EPA finalized the rules without conducting any careful
analysis.
That is why today I join Senator Edwards in offering this amendment--
one that I call the ``look before you leap'' amendment. All we do in
this amendment is delay the effective date of the final rules for less
than 7 months, during which time we commission a NAS study to evaluate
the effects of the rules on air emissions and human health. In just 7
months, depending on the outcome of those objective, scientific
studies, we could prevent serious potential damage to our environment
and to public health.
What the Bush administration is proposing is not, as some in the
administration might suggest, a nip-and-tuck. It's not a few technical
rule changes. It is a significant change in our clean air policy. The
administration is introducing new, more permissive rules for measuring
whether a facility meets clean air requirements. In Congressional
testimony, the EPA admitted that fully 50 percent of the facilities
that are now subject to the Clean Air Act's technology requirements
would fall out of those requirements under the rule changes.

[[Page S1175]]

When I hear that, I cannot believe there will be no health impacts.
If literally half the sources are no longer subject to these provisions
of the government's main clean air law, how can the air get anything
but dirtier? Then I look at recent studies commissioned by the
Rockefeller Family Fund and prepared by Abt Associates--the EPA's own
consultant--that show emissions will increase as a result of the new
regulations.
Based on the bulk of the evidence, it is counterintuitive and I think
illogical for the EPA to claim--over and over again--that their new
rules will do no damage to the environment. Then again, the EPA never
offers any proof of this claim, so perhaps we are expected to accept in
on faith.
This amendment will give us the answer. We no longer will have to
argue back and forth--the study being commissioned by the National
Academies will give us the facts. And we don't have to wait long. Less
than 7 months, and then we can go forward with the rules knowing what
their impacts will be. If the study shows significant environmental
harm, and the majority of this body still wants them to be adopted,
then so be it. But at least we made an informed choice.
Anyone in this Senate who has bought a house has toured the house
before putting their money down. They've gotten an appraisal. They've
conducted an inspection. Well, we're on the brink of buying a new set
of rules here that we will have to live with for many, many years. I
don't think we want to close our eyes, close our ears, cross our
fingers and hope for the best. Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is
remiss.
This amendment also brings a benefit for the states. Just last week,
STAPPA-ALAPCO--the organization of state and local air regulators--
wrote to Administrator Whitman asking for a 1-year delay in the rules.
They had already written to complain about the air impacts of the
rules, but this letter was different--it aimed at the administrative
knots in which the states are being placed by the new regulations.
You see, these rules are not optional for States--they are being
shoved down their throats. And for the 12 States and the District of
Columbia that implement the New Source Review program on their own,
they will have to incorporate the rule changes into their programs by
March 3. So my colleagues are clear, let me name them: Washington,
California, Nevada, South Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and the
District of Columbia. As the rules were only published on December 31,
that only gives these states and the district 3 months to evaluate and
implement a tremendously complicated area of law. Neither has EPA
provided the training and guidance that all States will need to
implement the rule. That is why the States wrote to EPA last week and
stated that: ``The March 3 effective date simply does not allow
sufficient time for delegated state and local agencies to prepare for
and executive effective implementation of the new NSR rule.''
By passing our amendment, we will be giving the state and local
agencies the time that they desperately need. Call it breathing room--
for our environment and for our State governments.
This is a controversial topic, and I know my colleagues have been
pulled in many different directions on this vote. But we are not asking
for anything here but smart, well-informed policymaking. Once a rule
like this is put in place, it is hard to reverse; indeed, according to
EPA, the whole point of this rule is to provide industry with long-term
certainty. We asked EPA to look before they leapt, and they refused,
ignoring this institution's right to oversee their rulemaking at the
same time.
We should understand the clean air impacts of these rule changes
before they become the law of the land. We need to stop and take a
breath before we change the law, so that we know that all Americans can
breathe safely, easily, and freely in the future.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Edwards
amendment and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that amendment.
Senators should know that I support making improvements to the New
Source Review, NSR, program. I want NSR to fulfill its promise of
developing ever better pollution control technology and cleaner air.
We can and should make it easier for owners of pollution sources to
get answers from permitting authorities about whether or not NSR
applies to their facility. They could benefit from an updated, more
consistent and timely process. That's not really in question.
Unfortunately, every reliable sign indicates that EPA's recent final
rules are not really improvements to the NSR process at all. Instead,
in the name of ``flexibility'' these new rules appear designed to
increase air pollution. At a minimum, they will certainly allow it.
EPA claims that there will be an environmental benefit from these
rules. However, they have done no credible work to show that that is in
fact true. And believe me, we have asked repeatedly and unsuccessfully
for the administration's honest assessment of the impact of these rules
since May 2001.
For example, the agency promised to deliver to the Environment and
Public Works Committee a document log relating to these rules by
October 24, 2002.
We hoped to find emissions information in those files, but the agency
failed to keep the promise and failed to provide Congress its due.
We're still waiting for the log.
I ask unanimous consent that a chart of the Committee's
communications on NSR be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. JEFFORDS. This administration's record in responding to
legitimate oversight by Congress has been dismal on this matter. Though
the agency will not respond honestly, independent analyses done by Abt
Associates for the Environmental Integrity Project demonstrates that
these new rules are likely to lead to significant increases in
pollution at various types of facilities. These case studies can be
found at www.refund.org/eit/docs/abill-mobil.pdf and abtin-nucor2.pdf.
The association of States' air administrators have expressed concerns
about these rules and asked that their effective date be deferred until
March 2004. Nine Attorneys General, from Vermont and other States, have
filed suit against the Agency for violating the Clean Air Act and other
statutes through these rules.
These rules allow sources to inflate their emissions baselines, or to
be designated as so-called ``clean units'' for a decade or more. That
way, even modifications that increase emissions will not trigger NSR
and the use of better, more effective pollution controls.
As Assistant Administrator Jeff Holmstead has confirmed to Congress
in testimony, these new revisions to major NSR applicability criteria
would exclude an estimated 50 percent of sources that might otherwise
be subject to major NSR.
An internal EPA memo from June 2001 estimated that the average annual
health benefits in terms of avoided mortality from just one small part
of the NSR program are, at a minimum, about $400 million annually and
up to $3.8 billion.
Now, if we tell 50 percent of those sources that they don't have to
worry about triggering NSR, then those health benefits are going to fly
out the window along with more pollution. That means more people dying
or increased lung disease and sickness.
This is just one small part of the NSR program. EPA steadfastly
refuses to analyze the larger, nonattainment NSR program for its
benefits.
The administration has conveniently ignored Executive Order 12866 on
regulatory review. These revisions are obviously significant under that
Order because of its hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in
annual health benefits. So, before it goes forward, there must be a
thorough and reliable consideration of its benefits and its costs.
That's why I'm supporting this amendment. I'm not a big fan of making
environmental policy through the appropriations process, but these
rules appear egregious to me.
It's time that we had the National Academy of Sciences review the
situation, since the agency and the administration do not respond to
Congress or the public. I hope that the Academy can give us a quick and
impartial opinion on the impacts of these rules on

[[Page S1176]]

public health and the environment. To give them time to do that, the
amendment defers the effective date of the rules for about six months.
Mr. President, this administration has a disturbing anti-environment
agenda. These NSR changes are just the tip of the iceberg. This group
wants to deregulate without considering the public health and
environmental effects. That's wrong.
There is no good reason to increase air pollution. Science tells us
that time and time again. We have the technology to constantly improve
our emission performance. This administration wants to take the whole
country backward instead of forward.
I urge Senators to support the amendment.

[[Page S1177]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.001

[[Page S1178]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.002

[[Page S1179]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.003

[[Page S1180]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.004

[[Page S1181]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.005

[[Page S1182]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.006

[[Page S1183]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.007

[[Page S1184]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.008

[[Page S1185]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.009

[[Page S1186]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.010

[[Page S1187]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.011

[[Page S1188]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.012

[[Page S1189]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.013

[[Page S1190]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.014

[[Page S1191]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.015

[[Page S1192]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.016

[[Page S1193]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T21JA03.017

[[Page S1194]]

I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have before us, although not under lively
debate, an amendment by the Senator from North Carolina with reference
to the New Source Review air program. This is a very important program
that we have debated extensively in the Environment and Public Works
Committee. There have been many hearings on this issue and, frankly,
the issue has been resolved. But unfortunately, it has become an
example of the polarized, confrontational, contentious nature of the
environmental debate. I wish it were not this way.
I believe the administration's New Source Review reforms are good for
the environment, good for energy security, and good for the economy.
I will not go into all the details here because I know there are many
other Senators wishing to speak. So I will await further discussions
when they have had their say.
I think it is important--I want to lay down a marker--for my
colleagues to understand that the EPA's New Source Review reforms--what
we call the NSR reforms--will improve air quality and benefit the
environment. EPA has already done the environmental analysis. It shows
that four of the five provisions in the final rule will reduce air
pollution. That is correct. I said ``will reduce air pollution.'' The
other provision will have no significant effect on air quality.
NSR will no longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state-
of-the-art pollution control technology. Anybody who has been around
Washington very long knows the law of unintended consequences. We do
things we think are going to help, and they turn out to be a hindrance.
The New Source Review, as it has worked, has been a hindrance because
companies cannot make routine improvements and upgrades to their
facilities to make them operate more efficiently, take less energy,
burn less fuel, emit less pollution or polluting substances, anywhere
from volatile organic compounds to the other emissions from
powerplants. They do that because the New Source Review says that
anytime you want to do anything significant on a major plant, you have
to go through the whole process. It takes a very long time, and you are
required to make very significant upgrades beyond what the available
dollars in the company would sustain.
The incremental continuing improvements, day by day or actually month
by month or even year by year, cannot be made because of NSR. If you
change it the way the EPA Administrator has proposed, NSR will no
longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state-of-the-art
pollution control technology.
The NSR reforms that EPA has proposed will actually cut emissions of
tens of thousands of tons per year of volatile organic compounds. NSR
reforms will reduce ground level ozone and smog. The NSR reforms will
also cut hazardous air pollutants and ozone-depleting substances. Our
families will suffer fewer cases of premature mortality, asthma, and
other respiratory diseases.
I would say further that EPA's NSR reforms are good for the Nation's
energy security. Why? Simply because they will allow facilities to
install modern technologies which use energy more efficiently. We all
ought to be able to agree on that. Using energy efficiently conserves
energy and reduces the polluting byproducts of energy production. The
facilities will be able to reduce their energy consumption, reduce
their dependence on foreign energy sources, and reduce our Nation's
dependence on foreign energy supplies.
What is wrong with that? In our current troubled times, we should not
stand in the way of any proposal which reduces our dependence on
foreign and Middle Eastern oil. I would also say that the EPA NSR
reforms are good for the economy. Companies would now be able to make
rapid changes to meet their changing business climates without getting
bogged down in time-consuming Government redtape.
The reforms will continue to protect the environment while giving
companies the flexibility they need to get new products to the market
quickly. We have all of the elements that should go into a forward-
looking environmental program. We have made great progress, but we have
also developed glitches in our system, and anybody who has thought
about the system knows that we need to make it more efficient. We need
to rationalize it. We need to give it flexibility so environmental
improvements can be made with the least hassle.
I am talking about environmental improvements. That is what this NSR
proposal does. It allows not only energy conservation, improved
economic performance, but environmental progress as well. What is wrong
with that?
I have yet to hear what is the objection to providing better
environmental performance in a way that is flexible, that encourages
companies to move forward. This is such a good idea that the last
administration supported it. Yes, Mr. President, you heard me right.
The last administration supported it. This was one of their proposals.
The reforms EPA finalized this winter were actually proposed in 1996
during the Clinton administration by EPA Administrator Carol Browner. I
thought it was a good idea then; I think it is a good idea now. The
only change is there is a new administration, with a different
President.
I hope this is not the reason behind some of my colleagues seeking to
raise the issue and challenge it. If it was a good idea in the Clinton
administration, does it become a bad idea in the Bush administration? I
don't think so.
I think we are on the right track with what the Clinton
administration started. The NSR reforms are good for the environment,
they are good for energy security, and they are good for the economy.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Edwards amendment. I look
forward--if there is further debate--to responding so that we can deal
with this amendment in a timely manner.
I yield the floor and, seeing none of my colleagues wishing to speak,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous
consent that the pending Edwards amendment be temporarily set aside to
recur at the hour of 1:30 today, with the majority leader or his
designee recognized when the Senate resumes consideration of the
amendment; further, I ask that Senator Dodd now be recognized in order
to offer an amendment related to IDEA, and that no second-degree
amendments be in order to the amendment until Senator Gregg or his
designee is recognized.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, with the
Senator's permission--and I know he has the floor--I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think we
are headed in the right direction. I wanted to state to my friend that
Senator Dodd is offering his amendment. He is going to speak for a
while. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock. We hope we will get
permission then to set aside the Dodd amendment so we can consider the
Dayton amendment, which is on corporate expatriation. He should not
take too long.
I hope the majority will give us consideration to set aside the Dodd
amendment then because, if we are going to work through all of these
amendments, we are going to have to have cooperation on both sides. I
have no objection to the unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1195]]

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the minority whip for his
explanation. I can assure the Senator that on this side we want to
accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. We are here in a
week when many Senators had other things to do and we need to move
forward. It is critically important that we get these appropriations
bills passed because we will be getting close to halfway through the
year before these bills can be implemented. I know wherever we can make
accommodations, we will do so, and the Senator from Nevada has been
very gracious in working with us. I know the Senator from Kentucky will
work with him.
With that, I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

Amendment No. 71

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy,
Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Edwards, Dayton, Corzine, and Kerry, I send
an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Edwards, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an
amendment numbered 71.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for part B of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act)

On page 1052, line 25, strike ``budget).'' and insert the
following: ``budget).

TITLE __--FUNDING EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

SEC. __. HELPING CHILDREN SUCCEED BY FUNDING THE INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA).

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) All children deserve a quality education.
(2) In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children vs.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (334 F. Supp. 1247)(E. Dist. Pa.
1971), and Mills vs. Board of Education of the District of
Columbia (348 F. Supp. 866)(Dist. D.C. 1972), the courts
found that children with disabilities are entitled to an
equal opportunity to an education under the 14th amendment of
the Constitution.
(3) In 1975, Congress passed what is now known as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (referred to in
this section as ``IDEA'') (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to help
States provide all children with disabilities a free,
appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment. At full funding, Congress contributes 40 percent
of the average per pupil expenditure for each child with a
disability served.
(4) Before 1975, only \1/5\ of the children with
disabilities received a formal education. At that time, many
States had laws that specifically excluded many children with
disabilities, including children who were blind, deaf, or
emotionally disturbed, from receiving such an education.
(5) IDEA currently serves an estimated 200,000 infants and
toddlers, 600,000 preschoolers, and 5,400,000 children 6 to
21 years of age.
(6) IDEA enables children with disabilities to be educated
in their communities, and thus, has assisted in dramatically
reducing the number of children with disabilities who must
live in State institutions away from their families.
(7) The number of children with disabilities who complete
high school has grown significantly since the enactment of
IDEA.
(8) The number of children with disabilities who enroll in
college as freshmen has more than tripled since the enactment
of IDEA.
(9) The overall effectiveness of IDEA depends upon well
trained special education and general education teachers,
related services personnel, and other school personnel.
Congress recognizes concerns about the nationwide shortage of
personnel serving students with disabilities and the need for
improvement in the qualifications of such personnel.
(10) IDEA has raised the Nation's awareness about the
abilities and capabilities of children with disabilities.
(11) Improvements to IDEA in the 1997 amendments increased
the academic achievement of children with disabilities and
helped them to lead productive, independent lives.
(12) Changes made in 1997 also addressed the needs of those
children whose behavior impedes learning by implementing
behavioral assessments and intervention strategies to ensure
that they receive appropriate supports in order to receive a
quality education.
(13) IDEA requires a full partnership between parents of
children with disabilities and education professionals in the
design and implementation of the educational services
provided to children with disabilities.
(14) While the Federal Government has more than doubled
funding for part B of IDEA since 1995, the Federal Government
has never provided more than 17 percent of the maximum State
grant allocation for educating children with disabilities.
(15) By fully funding IDEA, Congress will strengthen the
ability of States and localities to implement the
requirements of IDEA.

SEC. __. FUNDING FOR PART B OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, in addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act for part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, other than section 619 of such
part, the following sums are appropriated, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2003, $1,500,000,000 for carrying
out such part, other than section 619 of such part, to remain
available through September 30, 2004.
(b) Across-the-Board Rescission.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, funds provided under subsection (a)
shall not result in a further across-the-board rescission
under section 601 of Division N.''.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, this
amendment will add $1.5 billion to the appropriations omnibus bill for
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as
IDEA. This is a matter with which all of my colleagues are very
familiar. We have debated this matter on numerous occasions over the
years. A brief history about the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act may be in order.
It has been almost 30 years--28 years--since Congress passed this
legislation in 1975. The promise made in 1975 was that we would provide
the States with 40 percent of the funding to educate children with
special education needs. We started out with a far lower commitment,
and over the years the States have assumed the lion's share of this
responsibility. But over the years, we have failed to meet the
commitment we made to the States almost 30 years ago.
As a result of efforts by this body in the previous Congress, we came
very close to achieving the full funding promise that was made many
years ago. In fact, our distinguished colleagues and friends, Senator
Jeffords, Senator Hagel, and Senator Harkin, offered an amendment in
the previous Congress, which enjoyed unanimous support, to increase the
funding over a series of years, that would reach the full funding level
as required by the agreement reached in 1975.
Unfortunately, the President and the Republican leadership of the
other body refused to agree to the Senate unanimous vote on full
funding for special education. As a result of that opposition by the
President and by the leadership of the other body, the bipartisan
efforts of the Senate and the good work of Senator Hagel, Senator
Jeffords, Senator Harkin, and many of us who have worked on this issue
over the years failed. In fact, I recall some 15 years ago when I was a
member of the Budget Committee and offered in the committee the
language which required full funding of special education needs. My
friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, was on that
committee that year. I remember because he cast a vote with me in the
Budget Committee, but we failed on a tie vote in the Budget Committee
to get the increased funding.
Over the years, we have had good bipartisan support to do everything
we could to fully fund IDEA, and every year, for one reason or another,
Congress finds a way to avoid its responsibility.
I do not lay that on the shoulders of the Senate because recently we
have met the promise we made. My colleagues here understand and know
well how strongly the Governors, mayors, and county executives across
this country feel about this issue. This is one of their major issues.
When we ask them what are the important areas in which we can assist
them, inevitably over the years they have listed special education as
one of the most important areas in which we can assist them by meeting
our obligations we made some 30 years ago.
When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
in 1975, it promised to help States meet their constitutional
obligation to provide

[[Page S1196]]

children with disabilities a free appropriate education by paying for
40 percent of those costs.
The States came to us in 1975 and said: We need your help on this
issue. As I said, some 30 years ago, we said we would step in and help,
just as we have done with title I for children who have different kinds
of needs. Those needs are economic because of the levels of poverty
across the country. We said this also is an area where we think the
Federal Government ought to step up and provide help to the States.
The cost of special education--and again, I am preaching to the choir
when I talk to my colleagues about this issue because they know these
issues as well as, if not better than, I do. Talk to any mayor, county
executive, Governor, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative,
and they will tell you that the cost of special education is very high.
In fact, in some small towns--I know in my State and I am confident in
the State of the Presiding Officer and the States of my good friends
from Vermont or Rhode Island--two or three children with special
education needs can so distort a local budget with the tremendous
increase in cost that it becomes almost prohibitive for those smaller
communities to meet the obligations. That is why we have heard so many
loud voices over so many years calling on us to step up and meet our
obligation.
We made a promise. In 1975, we said: As representatives of the
Federal Government, we will come up with 40 percent of the cost of this
program. That is our obligation. We will do that. Here we are almost 30
years later, and we have reached a 15-percent level. We are still short
by some 25 percent of the costs of special education.
We have made great strides in going from zero to 15 percent,
particularly in the last 4 or 5 years, but we are still way short.
The amendment I offer this afternoon provides for an additional $1.5
billion in this omnibus appropriations bill for an additional 1 year.
This is not a full-funding amendment. I am not asking in this amendment
for full funding over the next several years. Since this bill only
deals with 1 fiscal year, I am merely trying to add these additional
dollars which will get us closer to the obligations.
Two years ago, a bipartisan group of 31 Members of this body
introduced S. 466 to direct the appropriations of funds, to fully fund
IDEA by 2007. That bill was the foundation of the Harkin-Hagel
amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment passed by the
Senate on a unanimous vote would have increased Federal support for
special education by $2.5 billion per year until we reach full funding.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned a few moments ago, because of strong
opposition from the President of the United States and the Republican
House leadership, the provision adopted unanimously by this body was
not included in the final No Child Left Behind Act. It made an oxymoron
of the title of that bill, No Child Left Behind, when, in fact, we
excluded the kids with special education needs from the legislation. So
it was No Child Left Behind unless you have special education needs and
disabilities.
Today's amendment will enable us once again as a bipartisan Senate to
take the first step that we recommitted ourselves to in 2001 by
increasing the funding for special education by $2.5 billion for fiscal
year 2002 to 2003. We are calling upon our colleagues to do just that.
In my State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions
of dollars to fund special education programs, our school districts--as
is true in almost every other State in the country--are struggling to
meet the needs of their students with disabilities.
The costs borne by local communities and school districts are rising
dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special education
costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular education
costs. Our schools need our help, and this amendment is an opportunity,
as we begin this 108th Congress, to do just that.
Of course, no one in my State--or any other State, for that matter,
in our great Nation--questions the value of making sure the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, which is both a landmark education law
and a landmark civil rights law, be fully implemented. The only
question is how best to do that, and a large part of the answer lies in
this amendment.
This amendment will demonstrate that we intend to match our
commitment to universal access to education with a commitment to do
everything we can to help our States and schools provide that access.
This amendment, further, will help not only our children in schools,
but it will also help entire communities by easing their tax burden.
Our failure to fully fund IDEA does not make the issue go away. When
we do not meet our obligation, then a mayor or county executive at the
local level has no alternative; they have to, under their
constitutions, meet these responsibilities. So when we duck our
responsibility, we only increase the burdens locally. They can slash
their budgets locally in other vitally needed areas or they can
increase taxes.
As all of us know, there are not many options left at the local
level. At the local level, that is where the rubber hits the road,
where people need and require that certain obligations be met.
Unfortunately, when we do not step to the plate and fulfill our
promises on the national level, then we only increase tremendously the
burden on our Governors, mayors, and county executives all across this
great country.
Homeowners and businesspeople end up paying higher taxes or watch
services they depend upon be slashed, not only in my own State, but all
around this country, because so much of education is paid for through
local property taxes.
Again, I do not need to recite to my colleagues the tremendous
burdens that are being felt by local and State budgets all across this
country. The estimates are now that deficits running at the State level
may hover around $100 billion this year and only get worse next year
and the year after. In my State alone, it is about half a billion this
year. My Governor tells me it is going to be about $1.3 billion next
year. I do not know what it is in the State of Alabama, but I presume
it might be like what Connecticut is. I think California is around $34
billion.
I heard some of my colleagues say the other day, in Michigan it is $4
billion or $5 billion. I think someone said in Minnesota it was like $4
billion or $5 billion.
We have these mounting deficits at the State and local level. There
is a need in special education. There was a promise made some 30 years
ago by the Federal Government. What I am asking for in this amendment
on the omnibus bill is that we take out the $1.5 billion, if we could,
and see if we cannot step in and provide some real relief for our
States and localities in their hour of need and the need of families
who have a child with special needs.
The President recently proposed another plan to cut taxes by hundreds
of billions of dollars for some of the wealthiest Americans. I
represent one of the most affluent States in the country. I probably
have a higher percentage of my population who would benefit very
directly as a result of the President's tax proposals. Without
equivocation or hesitation, the overwhelming majority of the people in
my State, including the most affluent, honestly believe the best use of
resources is things such as special education. While they, as everyone
else, would love to have a tax cut--there is nothing new about that--
when asked to balance the priorities and needs of a nation, they
understand providing tax relief for people in the top 1, 2 or 3 percent
of income earners in the country at a moment such as this is not a wise
or prudent use of the resources of this Nation when there are so many
other demands that must be met.
I understand the Federal Government faces the same budget challenges
in today's slumping economy as do our States and towns, but we cannot
accept the argument that because our economy is faltering we cannot
provide our children and their families with critical educational
resources and otherwise help average Americans. We would and should not
accept that argument if our homeland security or national defense were
at stake, and we certainly cannot afford to do it here, either.
Investment in education is no less important now than it was when our
economy was more healthy. It is essential to our long-term national
economic security. So I ask my colleagues

[[Page S1197]]

to seize this opportunity and choose to help our schools but, more
importantly, our families and young children who need these resources
in order to maximize their potential.
I do not know of anyone, regardless of to which party they belong,
Conservative, Liberal or moderate, whatever label one wants to put on
themselves politically, that when they look in the eyes of a child who
has special needs, can say, I am sorry right now but we cannot provide
the resources to their town, county, local, or our State government
because we have these other priorities that are making too many demands
on us. That is not my America.
My America says, when there is a child with disabilities in need we
step to the plate and provide them the kind of help they ought to have
so they have a chance to become independent and maximize their
potential to see to it that they can be productive citizens and add to
the great strength and wealth of our Nation.
I can go down the list of the various States and what they will lose
or gain. At the end of my statement, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record a letter written on January 16, 2003, to the
majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator
Daschle, in which they specifically go down and list the importance of
this amendment and the funding I am asking for, the $1.5 billion, as
one of their top priorities. In fact, they list it as the top priority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DODD. There are a whole list of organizations that support full
funding for IDEA. I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in
the Record at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. DODD. I am not asking for full funding with this amendment. I am
asking for the $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill. I am
confident every one of these organizations would support this
amendment, even though it is not full funding, but rather the
additional amounts this year when we consider the pressures on our
States.
Lastly, in looking at the differences in our States--the top State on
the list is that of the Presiding Officer--the difference right away
where there is a gap between what I am offering and the omnibus bill,
it is a little less than $30 million in the State of Alabama, and this
amendment would make up the difference. Going down further, in my own
State of Connecticut, the difference would be about $18 million. In the
State of Vermont, the difference would be about $3 million. In the
State of Rhode Island, the difference would be about $5 million in this
amendment. What a difference it would make.
I saw my colleague from Missouri in the Chamber recently. In the
State of Missouri, the difference would be about $30 million.
I have all 50 States listed and the difference that this $1.5 billion
could make. That may not sound like much when a State is facing
billions of dollars in deficits, but the fact that we might step up to
the plate in Nevada--I apologize to my friend of Nevada, who is sitting
right in front of me, but I did not see him--it is about $10 million in
his State.
I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record at
the end of my statement. It is printed on both sides of one sheet of
paper. Members can then have an idea of what the benefit of this small
amendment could mean to them and their States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 3.)
Mr. DODD. There are other Members who want to be heard on this issue.
As we begin this debate in this Congress, this is one area on which we
ought to find common ground. We will have our differences on other
issues but every one of our States, Governors, mayors, and families
with children with disabilities are asking us to step up and do what we
can for them. As we start out in the year 2003, this modest amendment
could make such a difference to people across this country and is
something we ought to be able to join forces together on and adopt.

Exhibit 1

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: On behalf of the
nation's Governors, we are writing to express our support for
several key provisions of the (FY) 2003 omnibus
appropriations bill affecting state programs. First, we
appreciate that the bill would maintain the FY 2003 highway
program investment level at $31.8 billion. With a sluggish
economy and many states facing budgetary difficulties, now is
not the time to cut federal highway investment. In addition,
Governors strongly support the $1.5 billion provided in the
bill to implement the new election reform law. We also
appreciate that the bill includes an extension of the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant
and related programs through September 30, 2003. It is
critical that states have reliability of funds in order to
continue operating their welfare reform programs while
Congress considers TANF reauthorization.
We would also like to express our support for the following
amendments:
Dodd Amendment. The Governors support Senator Dodd's
amendment calling for a $1.5 billion increase in state grants
for special education. We are committed to continuously
improving the academic performance of all students, including
students with disabilities. The nation's Governors support
this amendment and urge Congress to continue to work toward
enacting legislation that makes the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding a mandatory
expenditure with incremental increases towards meeting the 40
percent federal requirement.
Murray amendment. The Governors support providing the
necessary funding for Amtrak to support the continuation of a
national passenger rail system as proposed by Senator Murray.
Amtrak must be provided a sufficient level of funding to
guarantee there will be no break or threat of a break in
service. We must be certain that Amtrak will not encounter
the rolling financial crises it experienced during the past
year.
Chafee-Rockefeller amendment. The nation's Governors urge
your support for quick action on a bipartisan compromise to
protect resources in the State Children's Health Insurance
Program (S-CHIP). Preserving the S-CHIP funds that have
reverted to the federal treasury would keep $1.2 billion of
the FY 1998 and FY 1999 allocations within the program until
2004.
Harkin amendment. The Governors urge support for restoring
current funding levels to the Edward Byrne block grant
program for state and local law enforcement activities.
Finally, while Governors appreciate the inclusion of $2
billion for first responder grants, we urge support for the
President's original request of providing $3.5 billion
coordinated through the states. Just as Congress and the
President have responded by acting on a far-reaching
reorganization and consolidation of federal agencies, so too
the President recognized the critical role of states--the
first line of defense and the first line of coordination of
response to any attack. Thus, this should be meaningful, new
resources that respect the diversity, responsibilities, and
capabilities of states and the immediate need for resources
for national defense. Therefore, we encourage you to add an
additional $1.5 billion in first responder grant funds to the
$2 billion, so that we meet the President's recognition of
the need to be prepared to respond to and recover from any
terrorist attacks.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Governor Paul E. Patton,
Chairman.
Governor Dirk Kempthorne,
Vice Chairman.
____

Exhibit 2

Organizations in Support of Full Funding of IDEA

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
American Association of School Administrators.
American Council of the Blind.
American Federation of School Administrators.
American Federation of Teachers.
American Society of Deaf Children.
American Speech-Language Hearing Association.
The ARC of the United States.
Association of Educational Services Agencies.
Committee for Educational Funding.
Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and
Programs for the Deaf, Inc.
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.
Council of Chief State School Officers.
Council for Exceptional Children.
Council of the Great City Schools.
Easter Seals.
Helen Keller National Center.
Higher Education Consortium for Special Education.
IDEA Funding Coalition.
Learning Disabilities Association.
International Reading Association.
National Alliance of Black School Educators.

[[Page S1198]]

National Association of Developmental Disabilities
Councils.
National Association of Elementary School Principals.
National Association of Federal Education Programs
Administrators.
National Association of Federally Impacted Schools.
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
National Association of Social Workers.
National Association of State Boards of Education.
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education, Inc.
National Association of State Legislators.
National Center for Learning Disabilities.
National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness.
National Conference of State Legislators.
National Education Association.
National Governors Association.
National Indian Education Association.
National Parent Network on Disabilities.
National Parent Teacher's Association.
National Rural Education Association.
National School Boards Association.
National Science Teachers Association.
New York City Board of Education.
School Work Association of America.
School Social Work Association of America.
____

Exhibit 3

ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS FOR IDEA GRANTS TO STATES BASED ON FY02
APPROPRIATIONS, FY03 REQUEST ($1 BILLION INCREASE OVER FY02), AND $2.5
BILLION INCREASE OVER FY02
[Estimates are rounded to the nearest $000; totals may not sum due to
rounding; amounts are for policy analysis purposes only; dollars in
thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DODD
amendment:
Omnibus: FY2003
FY2002 FY2002 estimates
State preliminary estimates based on FY
allocations based on 2002
President's appropriation
request + $2.5
billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ $119,994 $135,572 $160,598
Alaska......................... 22,200 25,481 29,904
Arizona........................ 111,046 127,461 149,586
Arkansas....................... 71,962 82,600 96,938
California..................... 781,663 897,214 1,052,954
Colorado....................... 94,049 107,952 126,690
Connecticut.................... 89,246 99,915 117,543
Delaware....................... 20,346 23,354 27,407
District of Columbia........... 10,230 11,742 13,780
Florida........................ 405,996 457,128 539,273
Georgia........................ 195,217 224,075 262,971
Hawaii......................... 25,660 29,453 34,566
Idaho.......................... 34,534 39,639 46,520
Illinois....................... 336,545 379,984 449,770
Indiana........................ 170,909 192,168 226,322
Iowa........................... 82,527 92,393 108,694
Kansas......................... 70,916 80,242 95,225
Kentucky....................... 104,534 117,890 139,346
Louisiana...................... 119,377 137,024 160,809
Maine.......................... 36,989 41,411 48,717
Maryland....................... 131,489 148,070 174,709
Massachusetts.................. 191,891 214,831 252,734
Michigan....................... 260,223 295,771 350,539
Minnesota...................... 128,322 143,662 169,425
Mississippi.................... 77,199 87,876 103,993
Missouri....................... 153,554 171,910 202,241
Montana........................ 23,560 27,042 31,736
Nebraska....................... 50,476 56,510 66,480
Nevada......................... 41,761 47,934 56,255
New Hampshire.................. 32,080 35,915 42,252
New Jersey..................... 244,341 273,550 321,814
New Mexico..................... 61,595 68,958 81,125
New York....................... 509,444 573,817 677,232
North Carolina................. 202,782 229,818 273,162
North Dakota................... 16,521 18,963 22,254
Ohio........................... 288,468 330,031 388,587
Oklahoma....................... 98,503 112,024 132,690
Oregon......................... 86,419 98,061 116,413
Pennsylvania................... 281,606 319,827 379,343
Puerto Rico.................... 67,880 77,914 91,439
Rhode Island................... 29,561 33,095 38,934
South Carolina................. 115,464 129,822 152,889
South Dakota................... 19,680 22,590 26,511
Tennessee...................... 154,805 175,401 208,004
Texas.......................... 608,103 697,998 819,157
Utah........................... 68,595 78,736 92,403
Vermont........................ 15,929 18,284 21,458
Virginia....................... 181,316 204,243 241,077
Washington..................... 142,623 162,181 192,123
West Virginia.................. 51,338 57,475 67,615
Wisconsin...................... 140,643 159,051 188,623
Wyoming........................ 16,711 19,181 22,511
----------------------------------------
Subtotal for States........ 7,396,822 8,393,339 9,893,341
Set Asides for Outlying Areas, 131,711 135,194 135,192
BIA, and Evaluation...........
----------------------------------------
Total Appr/Request......... 7,528,533 8,528,533 10,028,533
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CRS analysis based on data from ED Budget Service.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. In addition to other
limitations, much of the data which will be used to calculate final
grants are not yet available. These estimates are provided solely to
assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas
and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended
to predict specific amounts which states (LEAs, etc.) will receive.

Mr. DODD. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to
this important amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Connecticut, his speech said it
all. In addition to the speech he gave today, he has been a vocal
advocate for change for many years. He is to be complimented and
applauded for his work.
I hope this amendment passes. Every amendment we have offered on this
side has been very important. We have not done very well with the
amendments because they have been straight party-line votes. In this
instance, I hope the children Senator Dodd has talked about would be
taken into consideration.
As indicated, it would be so important to the State of Nevada. It is
a modest increase but it would certainly take care of a lot of problems
that the school districts have in Nevada.
Again, I congratulate my friend from Connecticut and hope very much
this amendment will pass.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, like the Senator from Connecticut, I was
here in 1975. This was an unusual year for Republicans. This was the
Watergate year, and I was one of the very few who was enabled by the
political process to represent the State of Vermont at that time.
Because there were so few Republicans at that time, the day I walked on
the floor, I ended up being the ranking member on the Select Education
Committee which handled this issue in the House. Thus I have a personal
understanding of the need and a personal responsibility. Ted Kennedy
was on that conference committee with the Senate, Bob Stafford was
another one, and John Brademas was the wonderful leader of the
Democrats at that time. We struggled over how much money would be
needed. We came up with a solution and then agreed the Federal
Government ought to come up with 45 percent of the burden that was
placed upon the States.
I stand today somewhat sad in the sense we still have not reached
that promise or anywhere near it. We are about half of that now. I look
at severe cuts that have occurred and the lack of money for the States
and see they are imperiled at this point to be able to give not only a
good education, as required in the constitutional mandate, to young
people with special needs but also of all children because of the dire
circumstances we have.
I first thank my good friend, Senator Dodd, for bringing this
important amendment to the floor. This amendment is about making sure
that all children have an opportunity to learn, and I want to urge my
colleagues to support this very critical amendment.

We must recognize that we cannot provide all of our children with the
opportunity to achieve unless we support our children with adequate
resources. The level of funding for education in this omnibus
appropriations bill is unconsicionable.
When I first arrived in Congress in 1975, one of the first
legislative initiatives I worked on was the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, now known as IDEA. We wrote the legislation
to ensure that children with disabilities receive the special education
and related services they need and deserve. This is expensive.
We also recognized, however, that educating children with
disabilities would be very costly, and therefore promised that the
Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the excess cost of educating
children with disabilities.
At that time, nearly half of all disabled children, approximately 2
million children, were not receiving a public education. They were not
even in school. Another 2 million children were placed in segregated,
inadequate classrooms. It was brutal.
Today, IDEA serves approximately 6 million disabled children. IDEA
has been very successful in providing the basic constitutional right of
an education to our children with disabilities: dropout rates have
decreased, graduation rates have increased, and the percentage of
college freshmen with a disability has almost tripled.
IDEA has helped individuals with disabilities become independent,
wage-earning, tax-paying contributors to this Nation.
The problem, however, is that we have not kept our promise of helping
the States pay for the costs of educating children with disabilities.
Although Congress has increased IDEA funding in recent years, it has
woefully failed to meet its obligation to fully fund IDEA. Until we do
that, we will not have done what we promised.

[[Page S1199]]

Rather than contributing the 40 percent as promised, currently, we
only pay about 17 percent.
I would like to recognize Senators Harkin and Hagel, and, of course
Senator Dodd, for their unyielding commitment to our children and to
our schools, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to
fully fund IDEA.
The underlying appropriations bill only increases IDEA funding by $1
billion. At that rate, we're on course to fully fund IDEA in the year
2035. I know that the children of Vermont, and the children across this
country, cannot wait another 32 years.
And yet, as we continue to underfund IDEA, the costs associated with
educating children with disabilities continue to rise and absorb
increasingly larger portions of school districts' budgets.
For example, in my State of Vermont, the special education costs have
increased by 150 percent over the past 10 years, and the Federal
underfunding leads to the State and local districts to spend
approximately $20 million more from local sources than if Federal
funding were provided at the maximum level. I know that these problems
are not unique to Vermont; but rather, they are shared by States and
school districts across the country.
And now State governments are battling the worst fiscal conditions
since World War II. According to the National Governors Association,
budget shortfalls will be as high as $50 billion this year and $60 to
$70 billion next year. Accordingly, State education budgets throughout
the country are facing severe cuts, and schools must take drastic
measures just to make ends meet, no less meet the burdensome mandates
of the No Child Left Behind law.
This amendment represents a significant step forward providing some
relief to our schools, and I emphasize the word ``some.'' We must
recognize that we cannot provide all of our children with the
opportunity to achieve unless we support our children with adequate
resources. We must provide our schools with those desperately needed
resources and perhaps then we can ensure that, indeed, not one of our
children is left behind. The President has made that promise, but I see
nothing in the budget or anywhere else that indicates an attempt to
bear that cost our States have shouldered for so long. This amendment
brings us that little bit closer to our obligation to America's
children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote yes.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment and ask for immediate consideration of amendment No.
27, which is at the desk.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I regret I have to object
to this until we can clarify where we stand vis-a-vis this amendment.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REED. I yield.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding you will offer an amendment in a
different form than the Dodd amendment, and there would be two side-by-
side amendments; is that right?
Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
Mr. REID. We are working on that. I spoke to Senator Dodd and he
feels we would have 30 minutes equally divided prior to the vote.
Mr. GREGG. That would be reasonable. Assuming all debate on the
amendment of Senator Dodd--that there is no further amendment, with
debate going forward until that time.
Mr. DODD. If the minority whip will yield, my intention was to make a
few additional comments, but I have spoken on the amendment. I would
like some idea of when we might do this. I know the Senator from Rhode
Island has an amendment.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest, if the Democrat assistant leader is so
inclined, we now have a vote at 5:15. Why not begin at what time before
that?
Mr. REID. The two leaders have to work out what the sequence of votes
is going to be. We have the Dodd amendment which has been laid down. We
have the Edwards amendment which is pending. We have Senator Reed of
Rhode Island offering an amendment on LIHEAP, cosponsored with Senator
Collins. We have Senator Dayton coming in a few minutes to offer one on
corporate expatriation. They have to figure out the sequencing of
votes. We are trying to do as we have been told--to offer as many
amendments as possible. I suggest this can be worked out between the
Senators from New Hampshire and Connecticut, but we would like to get
to this.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Reed require?
Mr. REED. Around 10 or 15 minutes. No longer.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest after Senator Reed completes the presentation of
his amendment, we go back to the Dodd amendment. Hopefully, I can lay
down my amendment and spend up to an hour, equally divided, on it at
that point and proceed to the next item of business.
Mr. REID. If my friend will withhold, my only point is that we have
been trying to do as your leader wants us to do and line up a bunch of
amendments. We have Senator Dayton coming at 1 o'clock, and I have
announced that previously. He is not going to take too long. But I am
happy to go along with what the Senator suggested. We will get the Reed
amendment laid down and come back to the Dodd amendment.
Mr. DODD. That is fine. We have a couple of other Members, I have
just been informed, who would like to speak on the special education
amendment. They are not here yet because of the conditions outside. In
order to accommodate our colleague from Rhode Island, who is here--and
Senator Dayton from Minnesota is on his way--we could work up a
proposal and come back later in the afternoon when the other Members
are here and finish up the debate on that and allow these other
amendments to be debated, since those Senators are here.
Mr. GREGG. I would like to get back to getting the floor at a
reasonable point of time. I suggest at 2 o'clock I be recognized to
offer my amendment.
Mr. REID. I think the Senator's original suggestion is the better of
the two. I ask unanimous consent the Dodd amendment be set aside and
Senator Reed be recognized to offer his amendment, speak up to 15
minutes, and then we will return to the Dodd amendment and try to work
out something.
Mr. REED. Reserving my right to object, Senator Collins of Maine,
also a cosponsor, wants to speak on this amendment.
Mr. REID. There will be ample time later for her to do that.
Mr. REED. So her rights will be protected.
Mr. REID. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 27

(Purpose: To provide additional amounts for low-income home energy
assistance)

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today to increase
funding for the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, to $2 billion for this fiscal year. I am offering this
amendment with my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Susan
Collins. Senator Collins wanted to be here to offer the amendment with
me, but she is traveling from Maine in very difficult weather
circumstances today, and when she arrives this afternoon she will take
the floor to speak on behalf of this amendment.
I also thank my colleagues, Senator Dayton, Senator Snowe, Senator
Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, Senator Sarbanes, Senator
Cantwell, Senator Stabenow, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, Senator
Kerry, Senator Levin, Senator Corzine, Senator Leahy, and Senator
Durbin, who are all cosponsors of this amendment.
At this juncture I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chafee,
Schumer, Harkin, Fitzgerald, Murray, Bingaman, and Lautenberg be added
as cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. As you can see, this amendment enjoys widespread and
bipartisan support. I think it is clear, particularly given the weather
today, that support is not unmerited.
Let me begin by offering a weather report, if you will. It is today,
in Washington, around 30 degrees. But if you are outside, it feels much
colder. The low will be somewhere around 14 degrees.

[[Page S1200]]

As you go along the country: Albany, NY, today, 17 degrees the high;
Baltimore, 29 degrees; Chicago, 18 degrees; Cleveland, 15 degrees; Des
Moines, IA, 12 degrees; Detroit, MI, 18 degrees; Milwaukee, 14 degrees;
Omaha, 12 degrees; and my State, Rhode Island, they list the high as
23, but this morning when I left at 5 a.m. it was 5 degrees, but with
the wind chill factor it was below zero.
This amendment is important because there are Americans who are
suffering because of the cold. But it is not just about cold weather in
certain parts of the country at this time of the year; the LIHEAP
program is also important since it covers those hot stretches in the
summertime when energy bills in the Southwest and the Southeast are
astronomical and impact adversely low-income Americans.
We need this program throughout the year. We particularly need it
today to protect people from the cold, but, as I said, those
individuals who live in Alabama or Arkansas or Texas or southern
California need LIHEAP in the summertime and it should be there for
them, as it should be for those people who struggle today with the cold
weather in the Northeast and Midwest.
In fact, yesterday the coldest place in America was Embarras, MN,
minus 26 degrees. It is one thing to be in Embarras, but it is also
something else to be freezing in Embarras. So I think we have to do
something to ensure that we can protect low-income Americans from the
cold that is affecting them today.
Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the LIHEAP program. They knew
that people struggling with all sorts of expenses--raising a family,
providing food to put on the table--they needed help in these cold
months in the Northeast and those hot spells in the Southeast, to
provide for assistance so they could afford the energy they needed.

During his campaign, President Bush promised to fully fund LIHEAP to
help these low-income families meet their needs for heat in the winter
and cooling in the summer. If he stood by his promise, the President
would demand the $2 billion for which we are asking; rather, he has
proposed cutting that money. This year, despite rising energy prices,
colder weather, and increased unemployment, the President's budget has
proposed to cut LIHEAP by $300 million. This cut would deny assistance
to literally hundreds of thousands of Americans. The appropriations
bill that we are considering today does restore part of this funding. I
commend and thank Senators Stevens and Byrd and Specter and Harkin and
their staffs for their hard work to maintain this funding, but we want
to restore an additional $300 million to bring it up to the $2 billion
level that will just be, in terms of purchasing power, equal to last
year. We want to do that and I hope we can do that today through this
amendment process.
As I said, we could add this $300 million, but we are not requesting
new funding. This amendment simply requires the administration to give
the States the $300 million the Congress provided in the fiscal year
2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Congress provided $300 million in
LIHEAP funding 2 years ago to help these families meet their needs when
energy costs increase, when there are significant disconnections of
utilities because if you can't pay the gas bill or electric bill,
eventually you will be disconnected and you will be without any type of
energy.
All of these efforts in terms of funding LIHEAP have been urged on
the present administration by the Governors. They understand because
they are right there in the trenches, if you will, dealing with the
issue of people literally freezing today and sweltering in the
summertime.
Cutting heating assistance for seniors and low-income Americans is
not the way to go, particularly when it is juxtaposed against proposed
significant tax cuts. If we can't at least provide people with a warm
shelter in the winter and a cool shelter in the summer when thinking
about large-scale tax cuts, to me, seems somewhat inappropriate.
LIHEAP, even with our amendment, will be seriously underfunded.
Providing this $2 billion in regular funding to the program will just
equal the purchasing power of last year. What it does not recognize is
that energy prices are soaring. Today, on the front page of the
Providence Journal, there is an article about the cold wave that is
sweeping our region of the country, but also the fact that in order to
keep up with the demand for oil, which is our principal fuel, because
the demand is so huge, our Governor had to suspend regulations to allow
delivery drivers to work through periods of time when they are normally
required to rest. What is also happening is the prices are jumping up
because of uncertainty in Venezuela and uncertainty in the gulf.
This combination of increased prices, cold temperatures, and also an
economy that sees more and more people unemployed, is the perfect
storm, if you will, when it comes to requiring assistance for heating
throughout the Northeast in particular.
There is something else that happens when people are challenged for
energy, when they do without. They take their own improvisational means
to keep warm. They turn the electric stove on and open up the oven.
They go out and buy portable heaters. It is more than coincidence that
the number of house fires shows a sharp increase in the months of cold
weather in the Northeast because people are improvising. So this is
another danger that must be recognized.
This amendment simply allows people to stay warm in the winter and to
escape scorching heat in the summertime. It is something that is basic.
It is something I believe we should support extensively. I am pleased
and proud that so many of my colleagues have joined Senator Collins and
me on a bipartisan basis. I hope this is one amendment we can quickly
adopt and include in this omnibus appropriations bill. I hope, also, we
can at least signal to those people who are looking for some modest
assistance in these cold days that we have heard their calls, we are
responding to our political leaders at the State level, the Governors,
and we are giving them the resources to at least keep people from
freezing in a very difficult time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator calling up his amendment?
Mr. REED. I asked in my initial statement that we call up amendment
No. 27. I ask now it be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. REED) for himself, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Durbin, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Harkin, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Rockefeller,
proposes an amendment numbered 27.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide additional amounts for low-income home energy
assistance)

At the end of the general provisions relating to the
Department of Health and Human Services, add the following:
Sec. __. The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public
Law 107-020) is amended, in the matter under the heading
``low income home energy assistance'' under the heading
``Administration for Children and Families'' under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES'', in
chapter 7 of title II, by striking ``amount for'' and all
that follows, and inserting the following: ``amount for
making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $300,000,000.''.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to support this
bipartisan amendment to provide additional funds for the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). At a time when home heating
prices are increasing dramatically and temperatures in my home state of
Vermont are plunging, we can ill afford cuts in the LIHEAP program.
I have fought for years to make sure that no Vermonter has to choose
between heating and other of life's necessities such as putting food on
the table or prescription drugs. I am very mindful of the financial
strains that low-income Vermonters feel when the weather gets cold.
We must continue to make sure that funding for LIHEAP is a priority
of this administration and of the Congress. I am hopeful that LIHEAP
will continue to provide a safety net to families and the elderly who
are buffeted by high fuel prices, loss of benefits, and sickness.

[[Page S1201]]

I am going to close this short statement with this week's forecast
from the National Weather Service for Chittenden County. In very stark
terms, more than any speech, it demonstrates the need for LIHEAP in
Vermont.
Tonight. Mostly clear and bitterly cold. Low 10 to 15 below zero.
Northwest wind 10 to 20 mph early tonight. Diminishing to 10 mph late.
Wind chills 20 to 25 below zero.
Wednesday. Mostly sunny and continued very cold. High around zero.
Northwest wind 10 to 15 mph.
Wednesday night. Increasing clouds. Low 10 below to 20 below.
Thursday. Becoming cloudy with light snow likely in the afternoon.
High 5 to 15 above. Chance of snow 60 percent.
Thursday night. Mostly cloudy with a chance of snow showers. Low 5
below to 5 above. Chance of snow 30 percent.
Friday. Partly cloudy. High 10 to 15.
Saturday. Partly cloudy. Low 5 below to 5 above and high in the
teens.
Sunday. Cloudy with a chance of snow. Low 5 below to 5 above and high
in the lower 20s.
Monday. A chance of snow showers. Otherwise partly cloudy. Low zero
to 10 above and high in the lower 20s.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this
amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor to provide an additional $300
million in Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--or LIHEAP--funds
for the current fiscal year.
With unemployment rising, temperatures dropping, and energy prices
projected to soar, New Yorkers and others around the country need
access to energy assistance more than ever. Colder than normal
temperatures in October, November, December, and January have boosted
overall heating demands above previous expectations. In fact,
conditions this winter are projected to be as much as 18 percent colder
than last winter, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration.
People in my state know what cold means. Ask anyone who has been to
Buffalo where it feels like zero degrees Fahrenheit today; Rochester
where it feels like 6 degrees; Syracuse where it feels like 5 degrees;
Binghamton where it feels like minus 2 degrees; Plattsburgh where it
feels like minus 7 degrees; Albany where it feels like minus 2 degrees;
or any town in New York State in the winter months. It's cold.
Today, the National Weather Service has issued a hazardous weather
outlook for western and north central New York. Very cold air will
dominate the region overnight, with temperatures again falling into the
single digits from the Finger Lakes west, and below zero to the east.
According to the Weather Service, these temperatures will combine with
winds to produce bitterly cold wind chills below minus 15 degrees in
most areas, and below minus 20 degrees in the North Country.
So far this year, it has snowed just about every day in Oswego
County. Twice this month, lake-effect storms dumped several feet of
snow on the county. In the city of Oswego, snow fell at a rate of 6
inches per hour for about 4 hours last Wednesday.
So it's no surprise that applications for LIHEAP assistance in New
York State are up from last year--by at least 9,000 households.
That is why instead of proposing to cut this vital program by $300
million as the Bush Administration has done, we are here today offering
an amendment to increase the funding for LIHEAP provided in this bill
by $300 million. The $300 million cut proposed by the Bush
administration would have forced the State of New York to ``freeze
out'' an estimated 80,000 families who previously benefited from the
vital LIHEAP program.
Under this amendment, New York and other states will be able to help
tens of thousands more families with home heating assistance, rather
than leaving families--literally--out in the cold. The change in
seasons needs to be accompanied by a change of heart--and that is why
we are here today offering this amendment.
An additional $60 million in LIHEAP funding that was released to New
York State earlier this month received a warm welcome--particularly
from the thousands of New York families that are now able to heat their
hoes without having to forgo other, basic household expenses--like
buying groceries. And this additional $300 million will receive an
equally warm welcome.
I want to commend our colleagues on the Senate Appropriations
Committee who voted last year not to cut the LIHEAP program as was
proposed by the administration, but rather to keep it at its previous
level of $1.7 billion. Thankfully, the bill we are considering today
contains approximately $1.6 billion in LIHEAP funding for the current
fiscal year. But that is still not enough.
Many of my colleagues and I have asked the administration to release
the hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency funds that are still
available in order to help low-income families and the elderly in New
York and around the country pay their heating bills. With our economy
in crisis, this is no time to be heaping additional financial burdens
on our low income residents and forcing them to choose between paying
for food and paying their energy bill.
That is why we are offering this amendment today, to convert $300
million in already-appropriated emergency LIHEAP funds to regular
program funds, so that these funds can be spent now to help families in
need. Because for low-income families and the elderly in New York State
and around the country who are having to choose between food and
heating their homes, between prescription drugs and heating their
homes--this is an emergency, not question about it.
So I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment to
provide an additional $300 million in regular program funding for the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support my colleagues'
amendment increasing LIHEAP funding. In Wisconsin the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program is not a luxury but a necessity. Many people
around my State depend on this funding to heat their home and protect
their families, especially in this economy. Already this heating season
the State of Wisconsin has almost 4,000 more people being served by
LIHEAP than last year at this time. This 13 percent increase is a sign
of the high energy prices and worsening economy putting the squeeze on
families. The price of the program has skyrocketed as well, almost $8
million more than last year at this time for a 36 percent increase in
cost. The small increase from last year proposed in the underlying bill
will not be sufficient to meet the needs of my constituents. Without
the additional $300 million called for in this amendment, Wisconsin
will run out of funding in early May, almost a month earlier than in
years past.
Constituents are calling and writing my office concerned about
running out of LIHEAP assistance. They are unemployed and facing steep
bills for energy as well as rent and health care and they are worried
they won't be able to make ends meet. The average benefit in my state
is $369, an amount that would be almost impossible for a family on
unemployment to pay. Heating a house through the Wisconsin winter is
more expensive and takes more energy than cooling a house through a
summer down south. We have to recognize that challenge and help these
people.
The $1.7 billion in the bill still leaves 8,803 people in my state
without benefits. Almost 9,000 people who are eligible for LIHEAP will
go without because there is not enough money. There are thousands in my
state who need this money but do not apply because they don't know
about the program or don't realize they are eligible. The money today
is only the tip of the iceberg. This extra $300 million will help reach
these folks who are not being helped, and will help them pay their
bills until the heating season is over.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support
of Senator Reed's amendment, which would ensure that the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is funded at an amount close to
the level authorized by the Senate for the current fiscal year.
As he traveled through colder climate areas in the Northeast and
Midwest in 2000, President Bush campaigned on a promise to fully fund
this vital program, which assists senior citizens and low-income
households with their basic home heating costs.

[[Page S1202]]

Regrettably, the President decided to retreat from this commitment,
proposing $1.4 billion for LIHEAP in his fiscal year 2003 budget--a
$300 million cut from the previous year's funding level for the
program.
Meanwhile, plunging temperatures and rising heating costs are putting
some of the most vulnerable Americans at risk this winter. Indeed, only
a fraction of those eligible to receive LIHEAP assistance will actually
benefit from the program at current funding levels. Furthermore,
heating bills are significantly higher than they were at this point
last year. According to the Energy Information Administration, which
released its monthly short-term outlook on January 8th, the price of
natural gas has risen 34 percent compared to last winter's costs.
Heating oil prices have increased a remarkable 43 percent.
Senator Reed's amendment would increase LIHEAP funding for the
current fiscal year to a level close to the Senate-authorized amount of
$2 billion by transferring the funds already appropriated by Congress
in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001--but not spent
by the President--to the omnibus appropriations bill now pending before
the Senate. This important amendment will ensure that the
administration does not deny these funds to the scores of households
who desperately need this assistance to simply keep warm this winter.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Reed amendment.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this
amendment to provide much-needed assistance to our Nation's low-income
families. The amendment before us today would use $300 million in
contingency funds included in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental
appropriations bill be provide additional money for states struggling
to keep pace with demand for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program.
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, provides
critical aid to many of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
According to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, as
many as 5 million households received LIHEAP assistance during fiscal
year 2001--the last year for which such data is available.
Since then, of course, the need for this program has grown almost
exponentially. In many places--particularly in the western part of our
country--the downturn in our nation's economy has conspired with
soaring retail energy costs to create record-breaking demand for LIHEAP
dollars.
I want to explain to my colleagues precisely why this amendment is so
important to so many families in my state. On a number of previous
occasions--during debate on the Senate energy bill, at various
junctures during the Western energy crisis and the ensuing
investigations of Enron and others--I have spoken on this floor about
the Bush administration's failure to step in and stem the economic
bleeding in my state resulting from skyrocketing electricity prices.
But not only did this administration sit idly by as Enron and others
conspired to wreak havoc on the economy of the West, this
administration has also ignored repeated pleas to release the LIHEAP
money that would aid those very citizens who have suffered the most
from its inaction.
As my colleagues may recall, during the height of the western energy
crisis--which we now know resulted at least in part from the
manipulations of Enron and potentially other energy companies--
wholesale electricity prices spiked to as much as 1,000 percent above
normal.
While prices on the wholesale markets have now stabilized, one
daunting reality we face in Washington state is that, despite a series
of rate increases that had reached almost 50 percent in some areas by
September 2001, the worst of this crisis is not yet over. The
Bonneville Power Administration, which markets about 70 percent of the
power consumed in Washington, subsequently put in place a rate increase
of more than 40 percent in October 2001.
My State and region continue to struggle to pay power costs incurred
during the crisis, at least in part due to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's failure to act and void exorbitantly prices
contracts signed with the likes of Enron. And just this week I learned
that, as a result, the Northwest faces the prospect of yet another
round of double-digit rate increases later this year.
Already, Washington State has suffered from the second or third
highest unemployment rate in the nature for almost a year. Already,
utility disconnection rates have quadrupled in some areas of my State.
Already I receive letters from constituents who have to make the
choice between buying prescription drugs and paying their electricity
bills. So my colleagues can imagine just what kind of threat further
electricity rate increases pose to the prospect of an economic
recovery.
I could recount in much more detail this administration's flagrant
disregard for the statutory requirement that consumers be charged
``just and reasonable'' electricity rates. But today, I want to focus
on the fact it continues to ignore the plight of citizens who have
borne the brunt of the economic crisis the administration itself had a
hand in creating.
During fiscal year 2002, the Bush administration had at its disposal
a total of $600 million in LIHEAP contingency funds. Congress
appropriated a total of $300 million of these funds as part of that
year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill; the remaining funds were
appropriated as part of the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental bill, which
included $300 million in LIHEAP funds that remain available until
expended.
Due to the dire economic circumstances in which many of my state's
working families find themselves, I have repeatedly asked this
administration to release a portion of those funds to Washington State.
In October 30, 2001, in testimony before the Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Assistant Health and Human
Service Secretary Wade Horn stated that LIHEAP fulfills a ``dual
responsibility to provide ongoing assistance where it is most needed
and to respond to emergency situations such as extreme weather
conditions, supply disruptions or price spikes.'' At the same time, he
indicated that there were no plans to release emergency funds due to a
drop in fuel prices as well as forecasts of a relatively mild winter.
In response, I was joined by my colleague Senator Murray as well as
six other members of the Washington delegation in sending a December
10, 2001 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson,
pointing out that some 73 percent of Washington's low-income households
are heated by electricity--rather than natural gas or oil, as in other
parts of the country--and that retail rates continued to rise rapidly.
I would also point out that since 1980--when LIHEAP was first
authorized--electricity prices have climbed 180 percent on a national
basis, while oil, natural gas and propane prices have been relatively
more stable. In light of all this, we requested an immediate release of
the then-$300 million in emergency LIHEAP money. no money was released.
On March 8,, 2002, after Congress had added another $300 million to
the LIHEAP contingency fund and Assistant Secretary Horn had, in his
response to our first letter, suggested that should there be an
emergency, the administration would release the necessary aid, I wrote
again to suggest we had reached that point.
Washington State's utility shutoff moratorium was set to expire, and
5 inches of snow had just fallen in the eastern part of my State. Still
no funds were released.
On April 12, 2002, I wrote yet another letter--this time to OMB
Director Mitch Daniels. After a phone call, he requested more
information on Washington State's particular situation. My office
provided this information in an April 17, 2002 letter. Still no funds
were released.
On May 28, 2002, I joined with a number of my Senate colleagues from
across the country in sending a letter to President Bush, arguing that
many States had already exhausted their annual LIHEAP allocation. Still
no funds were released.
Finally, on August 9, the administration released $100 million of the
total $300 million available in fiscal year 2002 LIHEAP contingency
funds. Unfortunately, Washington State was not on the list to receive
any of this additional money.

[[Page S1203]]

What this amendment proposes to do is take the $300 million in
contingency LIHEAP funds Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2001 and
distribute it to this Nation's many families in need.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record and article from the
December 22, 2002 New York Times, entitled ``The Legacy of Power Cost
Manipulation,'' which describes the situation in Snohomish County, WA.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Legacy of Power Cost Manipulation

(By Timothy Egan)

Everett, Wash. Two years ago this month, a record was set
at the height of the West Coast energy crunch: an hour of
electric power was sold for $3,250--more than a hundred times
what the same small block had cost a year earlier.
Now, power supplies are abundant and wholesale prices have
plummeted. But the fallout from what state officials say was
the largest manipulation of the energy market in modern times
has continued to hit West Coast communities hard. Here in
Snohomish County, which has the highest energy rates in the
state, more than 14,000 customers have had their electricity
shut off for lack of payment this year--a 44 percent increase
over 2001. They have seen electric rate increases of 50
percent, as the Snohomish County Public Utility District
struggles to pay for long-term power contracts it signed with
companies like Enron at the height of the price run-up.
Aided by charities, most customers have had their power
returned within a day of being shut off, but others are
forced to make choices about which necessities they can live
without.
It's a pretty tough thing trying to explain to your 5-year-
old kid why the lights won't come on anymore,'' said Crystal
Faye of Everett. ``I didn't pay much attention to all that
stuff about California and Enron, but it's certainly come
home to hurt us now.''
Ms. Faye and her husband, Rick, who are unemployed, have
had their power shut off twice this year.
Brianne Dorsey, a single mother, said she removed the
baseboard heater in her home here and has had to rely on a
small wood stove for heat, because she is $1,000 behind in
paying her electric bills.
Faced with such tales tied to rate increases along the West
Coast, states are trying to get back some of what they lost
during 18 months when energy prices seemed to have no
ceiling.
The decision this month by a federal regulatory judge that
California utilities had been overcharged by $1.8 billion
bolstered the case of Northwest utilities seeking refunds,
officials of those utilities said. It also angered California
officials, who say they will continue to press for a total of
nearly $9 billion in refunds. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission is expected to decide on Northwest refunds in the
spring.
No matter what the federal government decides, officials
say their best hope for compensation is from a number of
criminal investigations being pursued by Nevada and the three
West Coast states--Washington, Oregon and California. They
liken their cause to state lawsuits against tobacco
companies, which started as long shots but resulted in
enormous settlements.
Aided by a guilty plea in October from a former trader for
Enron, and by newly discovered internal documents describing
how companies manipulated the energy market in 2000 and 2001,
the West coast states are hoping to get settlement money from
more than a dozen energy trading companies.
The companies say they acted legally in taking advantage of
a unique market condition, but state officials say the
companies created a fake energy crisis.
At the height of the rise in energy costs in early 2001,
the Bush administration said the West Coast's troubles were a
precursor of what would happen if the nation did not build
1,900 power plants over the next 20 years.
But state officials in the hardest-hit areas say the crisis
was never about energy shortages so much as it was about an
epic transfer of wealth. They want payback--in some cases for
immediate relief to consumers who cannot pay their bills this
winter.
Last month, the Williams Company, in Tulsa, Okla., agreed
to a $417 million settlement with Washington, Oregon and
California. While admitting no wrongdoing, Williams agreed to
pay refunds and other restitution to the three states; in
return, the states dropped an antitrust investigation.
Among large energy companies, the states are seeking
refunds from the Mirant Corporation, Reliant Resources Inc.,
Dynegy Inc., Duke Energy and Enron.
``All of us on the West Coast have been hard hit by these
rate increases, but the poor in this county have just been
hammered,'' said Bill Beuscher, who runs the energy
assistance program in Snohomish County. Mr. Beuscher said
that in the first two weeks the winter energy assistance
program was open this year, requests for financial aid were
up 55 percent from the same period last year.
The power trading companies named in criminal
investigations and refund cases did not want to comment
publicly while the cases were pending. But several of the
companies that are fighting refunds have said in their public
filings that the utilities, particularly in the Northwest,
are trying to renege on legitimate long-term contracts. They
said they did not act in collusion and explained that the
highest prices were a result of severe market shifts brought
in part by the Northwest drought.
In some cases, the power trading companies said, the
utilities resisted buying shorter contracts, which would have
cost them less. They also said that some Northwest utilities
took advantage of the price spikes and sold power into the
market themselves, only to come up short later. The companies
said they expected to be vindicated when the government
finishes its refund cases next spring.
Mr. Beuscher said he would like to see money from the
Williams settlement be used to help people who cannot afford
the rate increases. Consumers in Oregon and California have
made similar pleas. But officials in all three states say
that until there are larger settlements with the energy
companies, consumers are unlikely to see relief.
``We hope that the Williams case serves as a template,''
said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for the California attorney
genera's office, ``because California was monumentally ripped
off by these energy traders.''
About seven million consumers in California, who were
initially shielded from having to pay for runaway energy
costs during the worst part of the state's deregulation
debacle, are paying rate increases averaging 30 percent more
than the pre-deregulation prices of 1996. The state has the
highest energy rates in the nation, consumer advocates say,
although the structure of the rate increase allows poor
people and low energy users to escape the recent increases.
``I don't hold out a lot of hope that we will ever get
significant refunds,'' said Doug Heller of the Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a nonprofit group based in Los
Angeles. The group calculates that California power customers
overpaid a total of $70 billion.
At the height of the energy troubles, the trading companies
boasted of record profits in their quarterly reports. But
many of those companies are now near bankruptcy as they cope
with a downturn that has caused the energy trading sector to
lose 80 percent of its value, according to Wall Street
analysts.
``It's like the highwayman robbed us and then spent all the
money on booze,'' Mr. Heller said.
The companies themselves blame the states. In one case that
was heard this month, William A. Wise, chief executive of the
El Paso Corporation, which is based in Houston, denied
manipulating the market and blames the officials who set up
California's deregulated energy market for causing the price
run-ups with ``one bad policy after another.''
Under a New Deal-era law, power companies can be forced to
pay refunds if they have charged an ``unreasonable and
unjust'' amount for electricity. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, which West Coast governors say did
very little to restrain power traders during the height of
the run-ups, will determine the exact refund amount, if any.
In the meantime, electric rates throughout the Pacific
Northwest, once among the cheapest in the nation, have
climbed as much as 50 percent.
California's problems stem from its chaotic attempt at
energy deregulation, approved in 1996 and put in effect in
1998. The Northwest, with its tradition of publicly owned
utilities, was drawn into the California crisis by a
convergence of dry weather and freewheeling trading of its
own.
Usually, the Northwest avoids price fluctuations by
providing a steady stream of hydroelectric power, aided by
abundant winter rainfall. But in late 2000, a drought in the
Northwest forced utilities to buy power on the open market.
Some utilities had also tried to sell power into the
California market but were pinched by the drought.
At the same time, major energy traders were withholding
blocks of power to create the appearance of further
shortages, according to Enron memorandums discovered this
year.
Refunds were once thought to be unlikely. But then came the
memorandums--many of them detailing schemes to manipulate the
market under names like Death Star--and the agreement in
October by Timothy N. Belden, a former senior trader for
Enron, to plead guilty to conspiring with others to
manipulate the West Coast energy market.
Prosecutors say Mr. Belden is cooperating with
investigations of the power trading companies.
``What really started the ball rolling were the smoking-gun
memos, and then the guilty plea has helped as well,'' said
Kevin Neely, a spokesman for the Oregon Department of
Justice.
There is also continued bitterness among West Coast
officials toward the Bush administration for waiting until
June 2001 before putting price controls on the market, which
immediately ended the large price spikes and rolling
blackouts and brought stability.
Since then, power use has fallen and prices on the short-
term market are about where they were before the energy run-
up of 2000 and 2001.
``It was a fallacy to blame this crisis on a lack of new
power plants,'' said Steven Klein, superintendent of Tacoma,
Wash.'s public utility, Tacoma Power. ``But it's a shame what
came of this. It put a dent in a lot of family budgets, and
forced some businesses to close.''

[[Page S1204]]

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, in part the article says:

Here in Snohomish County, which has the highest energy
rates in the state, more than 14,000 customers have had their
electricity shut off for lack of payment this year--a 44
percent increase over 2001. They have seen electric rate
increases of 50 percent, as the Snohomish County Public
Utility District struggles to pay for long-term power
contracts it signed with companies like Enron at the height
of the price run-up . . .
``It's a pretty tough thing trying to explain to your 5-
year old kid why the lights won't come on anymore,'' said
Crystal Faye of Everett. ``I didn't pay much attention to all
that stuff about California and Enron, but it's certainly
come home to hurt us now.''
Ms. Faye and her husband, Rick, who are unemployed, have
had their power shut off twice this year.
Brianne Dorsey, a single mother, said she removed the
baseboard heater in home and has had to rely on a small wood
stove for heat, because she is $1,000 behind in paying her
electric bills . . .

Mr. President, this article details but two examples of the plight of
far too many Washington state citizens--where an estimated 295,000
households were eligible for LIHEAP even before the Western energy
crisis and economic downturn collided to exact such a devastating toll.
In 2002, while the Bush administration sat idly by, some 80 percent of
Washington State's eligible households received no LIHEAP assistance
whatsoever.
Of the 20 percent that did, 74 percent had children in the home, 14
percent of these households included disabled Americans, and 10 percent
included the elderly.
The amendment before us today sends a clear message: while the Bush
administration has turned a blind eye to the very real economic pain
being felt by our Nation's most vulnerable citizens--in my State, a
pain exacerbated by a very real energy emergency with its roots in the
western electricity crisis--this Congress must not turn its back. This
amendment would ensure that an additional 11,000 households in
Washington State, and many more through the Nation, would receive much-
needed assistance in keeping the lights and the heat turned on. I ask
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Rockefeller be added to the amendment as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr. (Ensign) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we are in a position to enter
into a unanimous consent agreement relative to the Dodd amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending Dodd amendment be
temporarily set aside and that I be recognized in order to offer a
first-degree amendment relating to the same subject matter; provided
that there be 60 minutes of total debate to be equally divided between
Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd or their designees; provided, further,
that following the use or yielding back of time, the amendments be
temporarily set aside, with no amendments in order to either amendment
prior to the vote; finally, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate votes in relation to these amendments, the first vote in order
be in relation to the Gregg amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we know the
Senator is acting in good faith. We don't have a copy of this
amendment. We have a pretty good idea of what it is. We are confident
that we have a general understanding of the amendment. We believe this
would be appropriate.
We hope, when this debate is completed, that Senator Dayton will have
an opportunity to offer his amendment. He is scheduled to be here at 1
o'clock. Senator Inhofe is also here. But let us take one step at a
time. Therefore, we have no objection. Let me also say that debate on
this may not all be completed this afternoon. Senator Dodd would
reserve whatever time is left of his 30 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 78

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for special education programs)

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Senator Dodd has offered an amendment which
increases special education funding by $1.5 billion. As an individual
who has spent a tremendous amount of time, after being elected to this
Senate, trying to bring special education funding in line with what the
obligation of the Federal Government is supposed to be pursuant to the
1976 bill, I like the idea of increasing special education funding and,
in fact, have driven the effort here in the Senate for many years to
try to do exactly that, increase special education funding.
When special education was originally proposed, as has been
mentioned, the understanding was that the Federal Government would pay
about 40 percent of the cost. Unfortunately, when I was first elected
to Congress, the Federal Government was only paying about 6 percent of
the cost of special education. But I think it is important to review
the history to determine where we are and how we have gotten there
relative to increases in special education funding because the
increases have been rather dramatic over the last few years. In fact,
as a result of the commitment of the Republican Senate, when we had
control of the Senate back in the 1990s--and now with President Bush--
we are seeing the most significant increases in special education
funding in the history of the program. Special education funding, as a
function of the Federal Government, has increased faster than any other
funding element within the Federal Government on a percentage basis.
So let's review the history.
When the Republicans took control of the Senate in 1996, we made S. 1
the first bill introduced by the new Republican Senate. S. 1 called for
significant increases in special education funding. As a result, we
have dramatically increased special education funding every year. That
is as a result of the Congress's effort, and now the President's
effort, to the point where we are up to, this year, $7.5 billion in
2002. It will be $8.5 billion in 2003. It will be $9.5 billion in 2004
if we follow the President's proposals.
This is an important factor because this funding commitment was made
by the Republican Congress, not by the prior administration. During
President Clinton's term in office, his proposed special education
budget increases were essentially nonexistent.
In the year 1997, he proposed a $280 million increase. In the year
1998, he proposed a $139 million increase. In the year 1999, he
proposed a zero increase in special education funding. In the year
2000, he proposed a zero increase in special education funding. But
during this exact period, special education funding went up, as I
mentioned, rather dramatically. Why? Because the Republican Members of
the Senate insisted upon it. We put it in our budget resolutions. We
passed it out of our budget resolutions. And as a result, we
dramatically increased funding in the special education accounts. There
has been a 224-percent increase in special education funding since
1996.
Then President Bush came into office. And to show the difference in
priorities from one administration to another administration, to show
the importance----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send his amendment to the
desk?
Mr. GREGG. I am going to send it up in a little while, Mr. President.
To show the difference in its importance in the two different
administrations and the impact it has on the special education
community in America, when President Bush came into office he did not
suggest a zero increase, as President Clinton had in 1999. In the year
2000, he suggested a $1 billion increase. That $1 billion increase was
in his first budget. He followed it up with another $1 billion increase
in his second budget. So now he was up $2 billion. And then, in the
year 2003, he has added another $1 billion increase. So he is now up $3
billion in 3 years, which is a 30-percent increase in just 3 years--
just in 3 years--over the funding baseline of special education.

[[Page S1205]]

So the commitment from this administration has been there and at a
level which is historic and has had a dramatic impact in the funding
needs of the special education children of America.
The practical implication is that the Federal Government's role has
now gone from about a 6-percent commitment to special education to
around 20 percent. It is a huge increase, a dramatic increase, and it
is on a rising path to full funding if we can get the cost of special
education under control, which brings me to the second point.
We are now in the process of trying to reauthorize the special
education bill within the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee. There are a lot of issues involving special education that
do not involve funding; issues such as discipline, in which the Senator
from Alabama has been involved; issues such as excessive regulation;
issues such as too many consultants, too many lawyers taking money out
of the system instead of having it go to the kids.
The fact is that the system has become convoluted, officious, and
bureaucratic. It needs to be adjusted, and it needs to be improved so
we are getting the money back to the children who need the assistance
as special needs children.
So reauthorization is very important in this whole context of what we
do. It is really difficult to continue to put money into the program at
these huge increased rates without doing reauthorization. Why is that?
Because it is like the goalposts keep moving every year.
We have seen, unfortunately, in some areas excessive coding, where
kids who should not end up with the stigma of special needs end up
being stigmatized as special needs children simply because the school
system wants to get more money out of the special education accounts.
That is not right and not appropriate, and it undermines the ability to
help the kids who really need the assistance.
So we need to reauthorize this bill to get some controls back in
place over how many children really are special needs children and make
sure those kids who really are special needs children get the
assistance they need, which brings us back to this amendment.
This amendment is well intentioned. I am in favor, as I have said
before on this floor, of doing proper prioritization, of saying: What
is it the Federal Government should be doing today? In what areas
should the Federal Government be putting its resources?
The No. 1 area, obviously, is fighting terrorism, protecting the
homeland, of making an aggressive effort in this area. Certainly the
Senator from Maryland, who is seeking the floor, has been a leader in
this effort. But the fact is, after we get into dealing with terrorism,
the next area that I think is most important is education. I think the
Federal commitment to education is critical. That is why I was a strong
supporter, last week, of an amendment which came to the floor which
said we are going to put $5 billion more into education, No Child Left
Behind proposals, title I, but in doing that we have to be willing to
prioritize. We have to be willing to recognize that this country--our
Federal Government--is now spending more than it is taking in. We have
to be willing to set a ceiling as to how much we can afford to spend
and then live within that ceiling.
But within that ceiling we need to make priorities back and forth
between what are the right programs, what programs should get more
money, what programs should get less money. We did that last week when
we adopted the amendment which said we are going to increase title I
funding, funding for the education of low-income kids, by $5 billion
but, in exchange for that, we are going to make an across-the-board
cut.
The Senator from Connecticut has come forward with this amendment to
jump, by another $1.5 billion, the funding that is already going into
special education. I am supportive of that, but, in the context of
allocating resources fairly, of saying, if we are going to make that
type of decision, that is a priority, and we have to reduce somewhere
else.
So what I am offering today, and what I will send to the desk, at the
request of the Presiding Officer, is an amendment which says, let's put
in the $1.5 billion in special education, but also have a cut across
the board so we stay within this $750 billion number, which is the
amount of money which we have all agreed to pretty much is a reasonable
number to spend as the Federal Government in the year 2003.
This $750 billion was not pulled out of a hat. It was aggressively
negotiated between both sides of the aisle and the White House. Prior
to the Republicans taking back the Senate, it was actually agreed to as
the number we would reach in a bipartisan way. Now it seems to be
eroding with some of the amendments that are being brought forward. But
as a practical matter, it is the right number for us, as a Congress, to
say: This is what we can afford to spend in the year 2003. But that
does not mean that within that $750 billion we cannot make different
priorities on the floor of the Senate. I happen to think one of those
priorities should be special education.
Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be
reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 78.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place add the following:

``SEC. . FUNDING FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT.

In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated under
this Act for support of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the following sum is appropriated out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for this
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, $1,500,000,000, which
is to remain available through September 30, 2004; Provided,
That, unless there is a separate and specific offset for any
amounts that are appropriated under Title III of Division G
for support of special education in excess of $9,691,424,000
for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the
percentage amount of any across-the-board rescission provided
under section 601 of Division N of this Act shall be
increased by the percentage amount necessary to rescind an
amount of funds equal to the total amounts appropriated in
excess of $9,691,424,000 for special education in Title III
of Division G.''

Mr. GREGG. This amendment is very simple. It says, let's set the
priorities of special education. Let's add, on top of the $1 billion
the President is putting in this year, which is on top of $1 billion he
put in last year, which was on top of $1 billion he put in the year
before, another $1.5 billion, but let's be responsible about it. Let's
take the money out of the other accounts, which represents a four-
tenths of 1 percent cut across the board on everybody, a very small
number, very doable, and let's do a responsible amendment here on
special education and take the increase of $1.5 billion and, in
exchange for getting that increase in special education, make the
across-the-board cut.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield whatever time the
Senator from Maryland needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of the Dodd amendment
which I believe is a first step to full funding for IDEA in 6 years.
The President has requested a billion dollar increase for IDEA. That
might sound like a lot, but at that rate, it will take 32 years to get
full funding for IDEA.
The administration is proposing tax breaks for zillionaires, and I
believe that is a misplaced priority. We don't need tax breaks for
those who do not need help while we are delaying help for those who
need it the most--the children with special needs, their parents, and
the teachers of the school system that wants to support them and make
sure they have the right educational program.
It is so disappointing that the Federal Government is not looking out
for the day-to-day needs of the American people. The Dodd amendment
increases IDEA by $1.5 billion. That is a total of

[[Page S1206]]

$10 billion, $2.5 billion more than last year. Under the Dodd program,
if we followed that approach, we could fully fund IDEA in 6 years. What
a great way to get to the first decade of this new century.
The Federal Government is supposed to pay 40 percent of the cost of
educating children with disabilities, yet it has never paid more than
16 percent. That means local school districts have to make up the
difference, often by cutting educational programs or raising taxes.
Either one of those are unacceptable options. Full funding for special
education will give local governments the resources they need to
improve education for all children.
Everywhere I go in my home State, I hear about IDEA. I hear about it
regardless of the community, from the rural communities, whether it is
the mountain counties or the Eastern Shore, whether it is the suburban
counties which at first blush seem very prosperous and certainly my own
Baltimore city, from Democrats and Republicans, from fiscal
conservatives to social activists, they all talk about how the Federal
Government is not living up to its promise about special education. In
Maryland, on average, we get only 10 percent. Schools are suffering and
parents are worried.
If you talk to parents, they are under a lot of stress, sometimes
working two jobs just to make ends meet, trying to find daycare for
their kids or elder care for their parents. The Federal Government
should not add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. If
you have a special needs child with a chronic condition, whether it is
asthma or autism or Down's syndrome or juvenile diabetes, you have
significant stress in your family.
One of the ways to alleviate that stress is to make sure they have an
educational program they can count on and a local school system that
will be able to work to meet those needs. Parents have real questions
in their minds. Will they have adequate teachers? Will they have up-to-
date textbooks or technology? Will they be learning what they really
need to know? Parents of disabled children face a tough burden already.
Caring for a disabled child at any age can be exhausting. Just think
about what they have to do to pay for their prescription drugs, if you
are a juvenile diabetic. The federal government should not make it any
harder, particularly when the laws are already on the book to guarantee
their child an adequate education.
The bottom line is, the Federal Government is shortchanging parents,
children, and local school districts. By providing $1.5 billion more
than what is already in the legislation, we can fully fund this by
2009, freeing up money in local budgets for hiring more teachers,
textbooks, technology that would help schools improve education for all
children.

This will help children with disabilities and their families by
providing enough money. More money means parents have to worry less.
Full funding of IDEA is essential. We don't like being the Federal
nanny. We don't like being the Federal schoolmarm. This is not about a
new program with a new bureaucracy and new regs and new mandates. This
is about living up to our promise, the promise to the children, the
promise to their parents, and the promise to the local community that
we will meet our responsibility if we give an obligation to a school
district.
I think the Dodd amendment is a terrific idea, and I want to support
it.
The Senator from New Hampshire also says we need to take a look at
special education--no two ways about it. In my home State, there is a
disproportionate number of African-American young men and Latino young
men being placed into special education. Is it the right place or is it
the wrong assessment? I don't know. But what I do know is there are
challenges to the legislation that we need to address, new thinking for
a new century, particularly with new technology breakthroughs.
If you are a mom or a dad, you are exhausted from meeting your family
needs, and the least we can do is help bear the financial cost while
they are coming out with what is the best plan and sharing the
emotional responsibility, the family responsibility. It is time we have
some Federal responsibility.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for some years now I have been active in
the debate over the Individuals with Disabilities Act. It is a program
that has provided tremendous benefit to thousands of families. Children
get extraordinary care with the most severe disabilities in our public
schools. At one hearing in the Education Committee, the superintendent
from a school system in Vermont stated that 20 percent of his budget
goes to IDEA.
We have a serious problem with discipline. I have offered amendments
and this Senate has passed amendments to deal with that discipline, the
weaknesses in the IDEA act allowing a child whose misbehavior is
unconnected in any way to the disability that they may have to be
treated quite differently from the other kids in the schools, making
teachers and principals extremely upset and frustrated, knowing they
have a dual standard of behavior in their school systems.
I suggest to anybody that they talk to principals and teachers and
superintendents who run school systems. They will tell you this act
needs to be reformed.
It is, in fact, a Federal mandate. It is a requirement on State
systems mandated by the Federal Government. It is time for us to do our
share of fixing the funding of it. I don't disagree with that. We need
to get that 40 percent, as Senator Dodd indicated, paid. We need to
honor that commitment when they started this Federal regulation. But we
also need to reform the law. It has resulted in extraordinary lawsuits,
bizarre results in the classroom and a trend of teachers leaving the
system. A poll in Washington State indicated that 50 percent of special
education teachers expected not to be in the profession in 5 years.
We don't get reform here very often. We need to couch the huge
increase that is due to this program as part of a reform of IDEA. It is
up for reauthorization this year. We are talking about it, working on
it. I hope we can bring some real reform to the program. But we agree
as a Congress on a $750 billion budget limit. We agreed on that, and it
is easier to cast those political votes--one more vote in favor of one
more spending program outside the budget agreement that we had--just
spend, spend, spend. Then we wonder why we didn't stick to our agreed
limit, why we have deficits.

The education budget went up significantly this year--about 10
percent. It has been going up significantly in the last 3 years. We are
spending a large amount of money, and more each year, on education at a
level probably three or four times the inflation rate. So, to the
contrary, we are spending money on education.
I think Senator Gregg's amendment is precisely correct. His amendment
says let's put the money in the area of education the Federal
Government dominates, the area that in effect the Federal Government
has taken over--the regulations that direct schoolteachers and
principals and superintendents and board members to run their schools
in certain ways. Dealing with disabilities is a Federal regulation. We
ought to at least meet the 40-percent promise we made in 1975. So I
think the perfect solution to this, as Senator Gregg said, is let's
take the overall education budget, which has large increases throughout
that system--let's take that $1.5 billion from those other programs
that have received increases, shift it to the IDEA program, and give
them a bigger boost than we have. I really believe that is the right
thing to do.
Mr. President, is my time up?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40 seconds remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have visited 30 or more schools in my
State in the last 3 years. I have talked to teachers and principals on
a regular basis, and they express their frustration to me on this
subject. As Senator Mikulski indicated, she is hearing that and other
Senators around the country have said the same thing to me. One
experienced special education teacher told me: Jeff, the problem is, we
are here working on rules and regulations, lawsuits, and that sort of
thing, and we

[[Page S1207]]

have completely forgotten what is in the best interest of the child. We
need to reform this act. We need to get more money for it and improve
what we are doing so that we help children more than based on the money
we now have.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains under the amendment of
the Senator from Connecticut?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 34 minutes, 45 seconds.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take 10 minutes. Will the Senator
notify me when that is up?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to express some thoughts. I thank my
colleagues for, once again, reconfirming support for the special
education program. That is heartening. As the Senator from Maryland
pointed out, of course, if we follow the plan of the present occupant
of the White House, we will be talking about three decades more--we
will have to wait a longer time than we have waited to complete the 40-
percent requirement that we have already endured.
So if you are a mayor or a county executive or a Governor, you can
take real heart in the fact that for about the next three decades we
will be at this debate on getting full funding--if we rely on the
administration's plans.
I will remind my colleagues once again that this body and the
previous Congress voted unanimously for a full funding program over the
next 6 years for special education. It was the administration--the
present administration--and the leadership of the other body--the
Republican leadership--that killed the proposal the Senate unanimously
supported. That is where we are. Those are the facts as we find them
today. We can go back and revisit history if you want, but the fact is
that the Governors and mayors out there may find a history lesson
interesting, but they want to know what we are going to do. What is
this administration going to do? What has this administration done?
What is the Republican leadership in the Senate and House going to have
to do if we are going to meet the obligations we talk about?
So what we have here--as the Senator from New Hampshire suggests he
will support--is the $1.5 billion. He is going to do so by adding
further to the across-the-board cuts in domestic spending--adding to
the impact of the already 2.9 percent across-the-board cuts. I will
share with my colleagues what this means.

Now, $1.5 billion is not a huge amount as a percentage--whatever it
is, four-tenths of 1 percent. Add that, if you will, to the 2.9. The
WIC Program will be cut by $137 million as a result of the 2.9-percent
cut. The Food Safety Inspection Service will be cut by $22 million. The
Food and Drug Administration will be cut by $40 million under these
proposals. State-Justice-Commerce will be cut by $113 million in
spending.
Go down to Head Start. This analysis shows what the 2.9-percent cut
means in energy and water issues--there it is, a $239 million cut;
environmental management, $203 million. There is a whole list of
programs, including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Mississippi River
Tributaries Program. If you look at Head Start, $63 million will be
cut. Air traffic control--that ought to be good news for those who
worry about domestic terrorism; transportation security, Coast Guard
will be cut by $72 million. The VA-HUD--veterans take note--has $903
million in cuts; VA medical care, $692 million in cuts. So go ahead and
add four-tenths of 1 percent to the already 2.9.
I don't hear anybody talking about a slight cut in the $670 billion
tax cut in all we are proposing here. Then my colleagues say we will
take your $1.5 billion, but we are going to give a ``haircut'' to every
other domestic spending program except the tax cut, which goes to the
top 1 or 2 percent of income earners. I represent a State that has
probably a greater percentage of those income earners than almost any
other State in the country. I can say with certainty that my
constituents--those included, by the way--who would be the
beneficiaries of this tax cut would tell you that at this particular
juncture that kind of a tax cut, given the fiscal needs of this
country, is unwise.
When my colleagues say we are going to make everybody pay a price, we
are going to make that haircut of 2.9 percent, including the budget
cuts I have suggested, and add this to it, just make sure you
understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about a tax
cut which taxes revenues over the table--I am not suggesting there
isn't room for a tax cut. But how about including that in the proposal?
Why is that particular area always left out and all we talk about are
the domestic programs that affect families so strongly?
I guarantee you, by the way, as you start looking at Head Start, the
WIC Program, food safety programs, while you are providing $1.5 billion
in special education needs and simultaneously cutting back on these
other programs, it is not uncommon for the same family and the same
child to be the recipient on one hand of the 1.5, and simultaneously
getting food in the WIC Program, food safety programs, and the Head
Start programs.
Again, I don't know how you can sit here and look at a child who has
autism or is suffering from juvenile diabetes, Down's Syndrome, or
other special education needs and say: I am sorry we cannot touch the
tax cuts, but you are going to have to take this cut in other areas.
When my colleagues offer their side-by-side amendment and suggest yet
further cuts, I think that is cruel. I think it is unnecessary. I think
there are ways of doing this without going after some of these very
issues that are so critically important to the well-being of our
Nation. They have a lot to do with the economic security of our country
as well.
We need to have a balanced approach. So, Mr. President, we will have
a debate further along in this year on full funding again. I only hope
the administration changes its view from the last Congress. I will
reiterate what I said earlier. Governors and mayors list this as their
top priority. Mr. Governor or Mr. Mayor, when the first amendment is
voted on and we are telling you, by the way, we are going to help you
out in special education, hold your breath because we are
simultaneously reaching into your other pocket and causing you to raise
taxes or cut other vital spending needs you may have because we are
reaching in to rob you of the necessary resources you need as well to
run your States and your communities. It is a cruel hoax, in a way, we
are laying out before people.
I am not opposed to looking at reform efforts. We had a fine effort
in 1997--some of my colleagues have forgotten this already--to look at
the special education programs. Again, with the reauthorization, I
presume we will look at them again. I certainly welcome that. Anytime
we have a program such as IDEA, close examination of how well it is
working, whether or not the intended beneficiaries are receiving the
resources they need, is something we ought to do. It is the only
responsible thing to do.
Let's not simultaneously suggest that we are going to have to wait
for examination before we provide the resources to the States and
communities. They do not have a chance of waiting. They have to provide
for these children under existing law. Congress mandated it 28 years
ago, and we have only gotten to 15, 16 percent of that 40-percent
commitment.
The $1.5 billion in this amendment gets us a little closer to the 40-
percent commitment. It raises and provides the resources to these
communities for the fiscal year we are in already. We will come back
again later in this Congress to see if we can get full funding set up
in a way which we did a year and a half ago.
When the vote occurs on this amendment, there are two options: One,
to provide the $1.5 billion while going after domestic spending
programs, along the lines I mentioned already or, second, we can say we
can do it and find the means of doing it, and one of the means is to
reduce by a small amount the tax cut the President intends to provide
for people in the country. The point being that most of the recipients
of this tax cut are people who have incomes in excess of $250,000.
Tell that to a family with an autistic child. Tell that to a family
with a child who has Down syndrome or serious learning disabilities:
Sorry, we would like to provide that kind of help you need, but, you
see, we have an obligation to provide a tax break to someone making
$300,000, $400,000 a year. We cannot just quite meet the obligation

[[Page S1208]]

to you. I know we made a promise to do it. We said 28 years ago we
would do it. We are up to 15 percent of that obligation. By the way, if
you wait another 33 years, we will complete that obligation, 60 years
after we made the promise. Then we will get you your resources because
we cannot afford to give you the help you need without cutting
everything else in the domestic area. Of course, we cannot touch the
tax cut for the most affluent Americans.
I do not know of anyone outside the people in this town who believe
in the logic of that argument. Nonetheless, watch and see what happens
when we vote on this amendment. That is exactly what will happen. Go
home and explain why we have to cut into these other areas to serve
needy kids in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 10 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take 1 additional minute. I repeat
what I said earlier, this is not the America of which people think. We
are blessed with great resources. We ought to have the common sense to
find a balance, to see to it we meet our obligations when we make them;
that we try to help those who are least able to help themselves and
their families.
I underscore the point the Senator from Maryland made a few moments
ago. Families of children with special needs face incredible pressures,
especially those making $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000,
$60,000. There are incredible pressures within that family. Why is it
we cannot find the resources to help our States, our Governors, our
county executives to do more to help these children?
Reforming the process, I am all for that. But the only way we can
help is to go after the WIC Program, the Head Start Program, food
safety programs, and the like? That I do not understand, and I defy my
colleagues to ask an average American to explain it as well. They do
not understand it when they hear that argument or we are going to wait
another 33 years to meet the obligations under this program.
I feel passionately about this issue; I care deeply about this issue
because it is the role that Government ought to play. When I look at
families in my State and across the country--and I know the pressures
they are feeling and what a small amount it is to offer some relief--
just some relief--to the families feeling this heat and pressure, the
anxiety it causes--I do not understand that we cannot step up and meet
the obligation because we cannot touch a tax cut that goes to the most
affluent citizens of this country. I do not understand that situation.
I hope my colleagues do not either. When the vote occurs tomorrow, I
hope we will support the amendment that provides assistance but does
not do so off the backs of people who can least afford it in the
country.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this has been cleared with the majority. I
ask unanimous consent that the consent request with respect to the
Edwards amendment be modified to the Senate resuming consideration of
the amendment at 2:15 p.m., with the previous provision still
applicable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut has reserved
his time, as has the Senator from New Hampshire. I am going to suggest
the absence of a quorum and, shortly thereafter, call it off with hopes
we can move to the Dayton amendment and set aside the pending
amendments.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada does not control the
time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that
Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd have remaining be preserved and the
quorum call, which I will make immediately, not be charged to their
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Wyoming is here and wishes to
speak on the Edwards amendment. Under the order we just entered, that
is not to recur until 2:15 p.m. If the Senator wishes to speak, we can
take him out of order, if Senator Dayton is willing to wait 10 minutes
while the Senator from Wyoming speaks.
Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside; that Senator Dayton be recognized to
offer an amendment on corporate expatriation; and that following his
recognition, Senator Thomas be recognized for 10 minutes to speak on
the Edwards amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, if he will simply seek
recognition and send his amendment to the desk, then Senator Thomas
will be recognized to speak for 10 minutes.

Amendment No. 80

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 80.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an
amendment numbered 80.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
296) to provide that waivers of certain prohibitions on contracts with
corporate expatriates shall apply only if the waiver is essential to
the national security, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC __. CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE EXPATRIATES.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Senator Paul Wellstone Corporate Patriotism Act of 2003''.
(b) Limitation on Waivers.--Section 835 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by
striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Waivers.--The President may waive subsection (a) with
respect to any specific contract if the President certifies
to Congress that the waiver is essential to the national
security.''.
(c) Expanded Coverage of Entities.--Section 835(a) of such
Act is amended by inserting ``nor any directly or indirectly
held subsidiary of such entity'' after ``subsection (b)''.
(d) Section 835(b)(1) of such act is amended by inserting
``before, on, or'' after ``completes.''

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendment No. 67

Mr. THOMAS. I rise to talk for a few minutes about an amendment that
is pending. It has to do with the New Source Review rider. It is an
amendment which would, in effect, negate or postpone a proposed change
in rules that have been proposed by the administration that I think are
very important to our efforts collectively to increase the more
effective production of electricity and energy, and to do it in a way
that contributes to clean air. I believe this New Source Review
proposal does that.
The Senator from North Carolina has an amendment which would prevent
the final rules from taking place. He indicates that, in his view, it
would prevent backsliding from the administration. He also indicates he
considers it an insider's industry benefit.
I suggest that neither of these allegations is valid. In fact, what
is happening is a change that will remove the obstacles to
environmentally beneficial projects, clarify the New Source Review
requirements, encourage emissions reductions, promote pollution
prevention, provide incentives for energy efficiency improvements, and
help assure worker and plant safety. Those are the things that are
involved.
To some extent, I think this amendment has a little bit to do with
2004 in that it is seen as the President's gift to polluters. Of
course, that is not the case.
The proposed rider is premature and ignores the public involvement
already inherent in this New Source Review reform process. In December
of 2002, the EPA issued a final rule that includes actions previously
proposed by and

[[Page S1209]]

substantially similar to those put forward by the Clinton
administration. These actions are supported by a bipartisan consensus
after extensive public involvement over more than 10 years. A separate
proposed rule on issues related to routine maintenance, repair, and
replacement will undergo a full public review and EPA analysis before
it can take effect. Thus, it is clearly premature at this time to stop
this open rulemaking process by rider before the process even begins.
A proposed rider is bad energy and environmental policy. The
complexity of the current New Source Review program and its related
burdens create significant disincentives to new investment in energy-
efficient and environmentally friendly technologies that are being
proposed.
The NSR reforms should allow facilities where actual emissions remain
within permitted levels to make operating adjustments and explore
alternative fuel and resource choices that will help them meet energy
and product needs in the most efficient, cost-effective,
environmentally sound manner possible.
A proposed rider will negatively impact more than 22,000 industrial
facilities across the country. The New Source Review program affects
utilities, refineries, and manufacturers around the country that form
the backbone of our Nation's economy. In the current economic climate,
we need sensible reforms that streamline regulatory programs while
providing fundamental environmental protection that allows companies to
improve energy efficiency, environmental performance, and economic
competitiveness.
A proposed rider would impede a State's ability to implement
effective clean air programs. The National Governors Association, the
National Conference of State Legislators, Environmental Council of the
States, and several State attorneys general have called for NSR reforms
that enhance the environment and increase energy security.

The keys to improving air quality and energy security are innovation
and investment. The final and proposed NSR rules will help promote
safer, cleaner, and more efficient factories, refineries, and
powerplants.
Many groups have supported the idea of making these kinds of changes.
Interestingly enough, the National Black Chamber of Commerce has
indicated in a letter the proposed revisions to the Clean Air Act's New
Source Review previously provided a meaningful compromise to economic
growth and the assurance of clean air and continued public health
protection.
Such an amendment that is now before us, they continue, impedes
progress in reforming a well-intended program that has, over the years,
unintended consequences.
Another group which is a cooperative in Montana, with membership of
over 325,000, says: We know many environmental groups oppose NSR
reform, but NSR reform will actually move forward quicker in adopting
more modern and efficient environmental technologies and procedures.
These are some of the testimonies that say we ought to continue with
the proposal that has been made to allow refiners to be able to make
improvements on existing facilities that will improve the environment
and will continue to provide for efficient energy production.
I urge that the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina
not be received by the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 15 minutes to
make my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 80

Mr. DAYTON. President Bush's announced tax proposal expressed concern
over the double taxation of corporate profits. I wish he would express
an equal concern about the nontaxation of corporate profits.
It is estimated that currently less than half of corporate profits
are taxed in this country. There are various tax and accounting
gimmicks that have permitted very profitable companies to not only have
no tax liabilities but even receive multimillion-dollar refunds from
the American taxpayers.
Take CSX, for example, which until recently has been headed by the
President's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow. In the
last 4 years, CSX reported U.S. profits of $934 billion, and they paid
zero in U.S. corporate taxes. In fact, they received rebates of $164
billion.
I will repeat that. They made $934 billion in U.S. profits, paid no
taxes, and received a $164 billion refund. That is certainly not double
taxation. That is not even single taxation. That is no taxation, and it
is a bigger winner on Wall Street to inflate corporate profits at the
expense of the rest of American taxpayers. It is one of the reasons
corporate income tax has been a declining share of Federal tax revenues
in the last 40 years. In 1960, corporations paid 23 percent of all
Federal tax revenues. Last year, that dropped to 9.5 percent, less than
half of the share that corporations paid 40 years ago.
It used to be the ethic that business, being an integral part of the
communities in which they operated, drawing their lifeblood from the
American people and from the democratic and capitalist structures which
hallmark this country, had an obligation to give something back. Not
any longer.
An Ernst & Young partner recently noted:

A lot of companies feel that the improvement on earnings is
powerful enough that maybe the patriotism issue should take a
back seat.

One of the most outrageous and obscene tax avoidance schemes is many
United States companies are setting up sham corporate headquarters
offshore in places such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. These tax-
free havens permit the total avoidance of U.S. taxes on foreign
operations and, in some cases, on domestic operations as well.
In the nonpartisan journal, Tax Notes, a recent calculation was made
that from 1983 to 1999 the profits that the largest 10,000 U.S.
corporations claimed to have earned in these tax havens increased by
over 7 times. Today, that means well over $100 billion in corporate
profits are shifted each year from the United States to these tax-free
havens--no taxes paid on them and, as I have said before, sometimes
even refunds. It is bad enough those companies can evade U.S. taxes but
some even continue to secure very large and lucrative contracts with
the Federal Government, even in the areas of national defense and
homeland security. Evidently these corporations--the executives who run
them, the boards that oversee them--see nothing wrong with profiting
off of the U.S. Government and then avoiding paying taxes on even those
profits in order to support our Government.

That is why last summer my colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, had
amended the 2002 Defense appropriations bill to bar such corporate tax
dodgers from being awarded Government defense contracts. Then he
successfully had amended the homeland security bill to bar those
companies from getting contracts with the new Department of Homeland
Security. Both of those amendments passed the Senate seemingly
unanimously on voice votes.
However, after the November election, and after Paul Wellstone's
tragic death, the final version of the homeland security bill gutted
the Wellstone amendment. Senator Wellstone's amendment, which he
crafted with the cosponsorship of the distinguished Senator from
Nevada, Mr. Reid, provided a narrow exception to this prohibition. That
was if the President of the United States certified to Congress that it
would be necessary for our national security.
When the bill came back this provision was gutted and the
substitution made known to those who had to vote on it that day. They
stuck in language that would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security
to grant waivers for national security or economic benefits. Just about
any kind of economic benefit whatever could be waived and argued by the
Secretary: preventing loss of Government, preventing the Government
from incurring any additional costs, anything and everything that you
could contrive, you could avoid if you could pay a high-priced
Washington lobbyist $1,000 an hour or more, euphemistically called
government relations. No doubt those waivers would be granted and the
legacy of my colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone,

[[Page S1210]]

would be obliterated by waves of waivers, which is why we need more
Paul Wellstones in Washington.
To honor Senator Wellstone's memory, I proposed this amendment, which
I called the Senator Paul Wellstone corporate patriotism amendment. It
reinstates the Wellstone language to the Homeland Security Act. It
says, once again, corporations that renounce their American citizenship
and have moved offshore to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. Government
will not get business contracts from the Government, at least not for
homeland security projects.
My language makes it as forceful and explicit as possible. It states
that the President may waive subsection (A) of the prohibition if the
President certifies the waiver is essential to national security.
Frankly, I cannot see any reason there should be waivers granted in
this section. That is the least we can do for the memory of Paul
Wellstone. That is the least we can do for our country.
Frankly, most U.S. corporations, as most American citizens, are law
abiding, patriotic, responsible, and willing to do their job, including
pay taxes, to keep this country strong. No one likes paying taxes.
Americans have been antitaxation since colonial days, since the Boston
Tea Party, since the rallying cry, ``taxation without representation is
tyranny.''

But taxes are necessary for our country's survival. We have increased
our military spending by 23 percent in the last 2 years, with
bipartisan support regarding the President's request, and we have new
efforts underway in homeland security costing an additional $37
million. Some Members last week thought we should be spending even more
in that area. We have Operation Enduring Freedom still underway in
Afghanistan and a military buildup now for possible war against Iraq.
That has to be paid for with our tax dollars. It does not include
highways and airports, sewer water systems, public education, student
aid, health care, nursing homes. This always depends, again, on
Americans paying taxes. It ought to depend on everyone paying their
fair share of taxes--individuals and corporations.
When someone avoids paying their fair share, then everyone else has
to pay a higher share. When one corporation making profits can shift
its profits overseas and avoid paying taxes, everyone else has to pick
up that part.
I wish we could establish again in this country the ethic that tax
avoidance is unpatriotic. It is un-American, especially at a time such
as this with national mobilization, especially in this country since
September 11 of 2001, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable
future. If the executives and board members of these expatriated
companies can so shamelessly abandon their U.S. corporate citizenship,
maybe they should forfeit their citizenship as well. I intend to
introduce legislation in the next few weeks that would require just
that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This tax
cheating will destroy the great golden goose of America. We send our
young men and women overseas to risk their lives or even give their
lives for our country, while men--mostly men and a few women--send
their corporations overseas to evade taxes. What a disgrace. What a
shame that the greatness of this country is being undermined by placing
profits and corporate and individual greed over the best interests of
the United States of America.
This amendment meant a lot to my friend and colleague, Senator
Wellstone. He was surprised but delighted that the Senate, on two
occasions, passed this amendment by a voice vote. Had Paul lived, I
would have enjoyed watching the fur fly that day in November when this
bill came back to the Senate with this provision gutted. But Paul is
not here, so it is incumbent upon all of us to take that stand for him
and with him. If it was good enough last year to be passed by the
Senate, I cannot imagine why anyone who supported it then would change
their mind now. In fact, there is even more reason than before to stand
behind America, stand behind the belief that we all contribute our
share, do our share, and no one avoids their share. That is what makes
us successful.
Mr. REID. I would like to ask the Senator a question. I personally
appreciate the Senator stepping forward. It should come from the State
of Minnesota. Senator Wellstone believed in this strongly.
I remember the Senator advocating this. When I think of our friend
Paul and his untimely death in the terrible airplane crash, I feel
badly. I feel good about your moving forward with this amendment that
Paul and I worked on together in the Senate. It is a modest amendment.
The Senator recognizes, does he not, that this amendment does not
apply to nonhomeland security or defense contracts? Maybe we will do
something about these companies later. I don't believe they should be
able to have a contract with Health and Human Services, with the
Department of the Interior, or any of the Federal agencies. However, we
have limited this amendment to homeland security and defense. Does the
Senator acknowledge that?
Mr. DAYTON. The Senator is correct. The Senator was instrumental in
working with Senator Wellstone on the floor and myself to craft this
amendment. It is narrowly focused.
Mr. REID. The Senator would also acknowledge, would he not, that this
is not a permanent ban. All they have to do is say let me do what I
should have done in the first place, just pay American taxes.
Mr. DAYTON. Come home.
Mr. REID. There are all kinds of reincorporations that take place
every day in corporate America. They could simply reincorporate in
Delaware or Nevada or Minnesota or any place they felt appropriate and
they would be right back, being able to get all the contracts they
want.
Mr. DAYTON. They would be right back, as the Senator said, where they
were before, headquartered in the United States of America, paying
taxes on their U.S. profits rather than creating a sham. These are not
real entities; these are fictions just for the sake of tax evasion.
Mr. REID. My third inquiry to the Senator from Minnesota: I know some
of our friends who are lobbyists, as you have indicated, public
relations representatives--I think, with a straight face they really
would have trouble advocating for this. Would the Senator acknowledge
that?
Mr. DAYTON. I would, also.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator's attention.
Mr. President, tax loopholes allow dozens of U.S. corporations to
move their headquarters, but they move them on paper only, to tax haven
countries to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. It was just a
short time ago that Senator Wellstone and I offered an amendment to bar
the Department of Homeland Security from awarding Government contracts
to these corporate tax runaways. The Senate adopted that amendment
unanimously. But in the homeland security bill that passed the last
little bit that we were here last year, they cut this amendment.
It is a sad reality that these corporate expatriations are
technically legal under current law. But legal or not, there is no
reason U.S. Government contracts should be awarded to these tax
runaways. These are lucrative Government contracts and we should not
reward these companies for doing what they have done.
Senator Wellstone and I believed these corporations, if they want
Federal contracts so badly, they should simply come home, come back to
the United States and be eligible to bid on homeland security
contracts. If they didn't want to do that, then they should go lobby,
for example, the Government of Canada or Bermuda or the Cayman Islands
for contracts there.
Some of these companies have indicated: We have been in business in
America for a long time. They should stay in business in America. These
corporations are shams. We have companies that file paperwork, set up
not one but sometimes more than one corporation. One company has three
British employees in a little office in Hamilton, Bermuda, but by
having these three individuals in Hamilton, Bermuda, they can avoid
paying up to $40 million every year in U.S. income taxes.
This bill would forbid foreign corporations involved in these
transactions from holding Government contracts with the Defense
Department and Department of Homeland Security. It would not restrict
major corporations operating in the United States

[[Page S1211]]

from winning millions of dollars from the Government in contracts.
I am not going to pinpoint companies. I have read on the Senate floor
just a few months ago the names of these companies that are doing these
things. This amendment will finally correct the record and accomplish
what Senator Wellstone worked for last year. It should have been a
priority in the legislation to guarantee the Department of Homeland
Security booked its business with corporations that do their share of
bearing the burdens of protecting this country. What they have done is
they are bearing the burden to protect their own companies, not their
own country. The homeland security law is more concerned with window
dressing on this issue because what is in the homeland security bill
still allows these companies to have huge Government contracts,
homeland security contracts.

One contract I have here, $144,844,000 is what they are getting, even
though they have incorporated in Bermuda.
Another company, not as large as the first, but almost $5 million. We
have another company, $6 million; $17 million; another company, $249
million; another company, $2 million; $248 million--it is on and on
with these what I would think would be embarrassing to them. Apparently
it is not embarrassing enough that they pay corporate taxes in the
United States like other companies.
I again extend my appreciation to the Senator from Minnesota for this
amendment and I hope the many people who are in favor of this
legislation will speak in favor of the legislation and we can have a
resounding vote like we did when it passed unanimously last year. This
would be one way to honor the dignity of Paul Wellstone.
Mr. DAYTON. If I may inquire of my friend, the Senator from Nevada,
regarding the last statement, can the Senator think of anything that
would be a better tribute to Senator Wellstone's memory than passing
this amendment and insisting the Senate conferees uphold it and the
President sign it into law?
Mr. REID. I would answer my friend by saying Senator Wellstone, as we
know, stood for the small guy. He was concerned about those people who
did not have the large lobbying contracts. I think the Senator from
Minnesota is absolutely right. The senior Senator from Minnesota is
right in that this amendment would help a lot of the small people--
small in stature, big in character, like Paul Wellstone--the people
Paul Wellstone would try to protect. That is because people who are not
paying these taxes prevent us from providing more money for LIHEAP, for
which he advocated all the time. It would allow us to provide more
money for education, which he talked about, and he could do that
because he was a college professor. It would allow more money for the
global AIDS epidemic that he talked about.
This money that these corporations are not paying is more money that
other taxpayers have to come up with. We have expenses that have to be
met. We have programs that have to be funded. This amendment would
force some of these unpatriotic companies into being more patriotic.
They would be more patriotic because they would be forced to be more
patriotic. If they want to have Government contracts with the Homeland
Security Department and Homeland Defense Department, they would have to
be patriotic.
So I answer the question with a resounding yes. This would mean a lot
to Paul Wellstone, that his legacy is not forgotten, nor the things for
which he fought.
A lot of these things he fought for alone. I can remember this issue
that he was beaten up on pretty good on the Senate floor--until he was
able to talk and explain. Like many of the things that Paul Wellstone
brought out of the dark into the light, in the light of day it all
looked better. I hope we all support this the way we did before.
This is an important amendment and I repeat, it would honor one of
the most courageous people I have ever known--physically and
intellectually--Paul Wellstone.

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator is absolutely correct about the price we pay
when these companies avoid their share of taxes. The Tax Notes journal
estimated over $100 billion in corporate profits now go untaxed because
of these offshore tax evasions. Even 20 percent, the tax rate on that,
which is below the corporate rate but after deductions and exclusions
probably is close to what tax-paying corporations pay, that would cover
the cost of the 40-percent funding for special education that Senator
Dodd was discussing with Senator Gregg a few minutes ago. There it
would be right there. We could keep that promise to Minnesota's
schoolchildren, Nevada's schoolchildren, and all the schoolchildren in
the school districts across this country. It would not require raising
anybody's taxes by a single dollar, if those who were evading them
would pay their share.
I think it is shameful. I think it is un-American, unpatriotic, and
it ought to be illegal. I particularly look forward to a discussion at
some point, as I said, about legislation I intend to introduce that
says if corporate executives and corporate boards are going to send
these corporations overseas, they should go overseas themselves. If
they think it is such an advantage to be in the Cayman Islands or
Bermuda they should go live there themselves. If they are going to
renounce their corporate citizenship, let them renounce their own
citizenship as well, and they will suffer the consequences maybe then
they will stop and think about how fortunate we are to live in this
country and how it is only by all of us doing our fair share that this
country keeps strong and secure.
Mr. REID. If I could respond to my colleague through the Chair, let
me say the defense of this previously was that these are just good
lawyers, good tax men. This is the way the law is written so why
shouldn't they take advantage of it?
What the Senator from Minnesota and I are trying to do is change the
law so that this is not this tax loophole. We know and people know that
there are lots of tax loopholes. They are hard to plug because of the
huge lobby which they have. We try to plug them. The ones that benefit
are some of the largest corporations in America--I am sorry to say--
avoiding billions of dollars in taxes. It is not fair. They reply by
saying, well, these people have good lawyers and good accountants. That
doesn't justify what they are doing. In fact, it even signifies that we
need to do this as quickly as possible to stop these people from doing
this and make it easier for the rest of the people in America who are
paying their fair share.

Mr. DAYTON. As the Senator knows, a lot of small- and medium-sized
businesses don't have the options. Certainly the average American
citizen paying taxes doesn't have the option to move to Bermuda or the
Cayman Islands and not claim any tax liability whatsoever. It is
shameful that those most profitable that can most easily afford to pay
their share are avoiding them entirely and dumping that burden on
everyone else.
As the Senator said, this would be one small step in the right
direction of returning to an ethic where those who are making profits
pay their taxes. If we all do that in a fair way, then everybody's
taxes go down. If somebody is avoiding taxes, then somebody else's
taxes go up.
I thank the Senator again for his support and assistance with this
matter. I know in this matter that Senator Paul Wellstone could not
have stood alone last year, and the Senator from Nevada was with him
shoulder to shoulder every step of the way.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are waiting now until 2:30 when Senator
Inhofe is to appear. We understand he will close with the Edwards
amendment.
We want the Record to be spread with the fact that we have done
everything we can to move this legislation along. We were ready to go
early this morning. We had to wait until the other side was ready to
move on the bill. We have done our best to plug all the timeslots that
have been in existence this morning. I want the Record to reflect that
we are doing nothing to slow this down.
I see Senator Inhofe is here now. If he is ready to speak, we could
move the 2:30 time up to whatever time is appropriate for the chairman
of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the minority leader will yield, I
thought I would get to the floor at 2:15.

[[Page S1212]]

Mr. REID. The Senator was scheduled for 2:30. We are ready now.
I am to be corrected. I was told by the floor staff that I was wrong
and the Senator is right. It is 2:15. We don't need to change anything.
We ask unanimous consent to return to the Edwards amendment. I think
that is the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendment No. 86 to Amendment No. 67

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as many of you know, in March of 2001,
Senator Breaux and I wrote the first congressional letter on the New
Source Review Program to Vice President Cheney in his capacity at that
time as chairman of the National Energy Policy Development Group. Our
letter stated that, unless reformed ``EPA's flawed and confusing NSR
policies will continue to interfere with our Nation's ability to meet
our energy and fuel supply needs.''
At this point in my presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have
that letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, March 23, 2001.
Hon. Richard B. Cheney,
Vice President of the United States of America, The White
House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Vice President: In your capacity as the Chairman
of the National Energy Policy Development Group, we are
writing to bring to your attention our concerns that, unless
addressed, the prior administration's EPA's New Source Review
(``NSR'') enforcement policies will continue to interfere
with our nation's ability to meet our energy and fuel supply
needs. We strongly urge that the Administration take into
account these concerns in developing its national energy
plan.
As you are very much aware, the nation faces a potential
energy supply shortage of significant dimension. The
California energy crisis is receiving the greatest attention
in the media. However, major challenges exist in meeting
demands for gasoline and other fuels, especially in the
Midwest. More troubling, current projections suggest fuel
shortages and price spikes--far exceeding last year's
problem. These are due to a number of factors including:
difficulties in making summer-blend Phase II reformulated
gasoline; EPA hurdles to expanding refinery capacity; and the
overall increase in energy demand.
Unless reviewed and addressed, EPA's implementation of NSR
permitting requirements will continue to thwart the nation's
ability to maintain and expand refinery capacity to meet fuel
requirements. In 1998, EPA embarked on an overly aggressive
initiative in which it announced new interpretations of its
NSR requirements that it has applied retroactively to create
a basis for alleging that actions by electric utilities,
refineries and other industrial sources taken over the past
20 years should have been permitted under the federal NSR
program. We also understand that these new interpretations
conflict with EPA's regulations, its own prior
interpretations and actions, and State permitting agency
decisions.
EPA's actions have been premised heavily on its
reinterpretation of two elements of the NSR permitting
requirements. First, EPA's regulations specifically exempt
``routine maintenance, repair and replacement'' activities
from NSR permitting. EPA now claims that projects required to
be undertaken by utilities and refineries over the past 20
years to maintain plants and a reliable supply of
electricity and fuels were not routine and thus should
have gone through the 18-month, costly NSR permitting
process. EPA's enforcement officials are asserting this
even though, for more than two decades, EPA staff have had
full knowledge that these maintenance, repair and
replacement projects were not being permitted.
A second ground for many of EPA's claims has to do with
whether projects resulted in significant emissions increases.
By employing a discredited method for determining whether
emissions increases would result from a project-using so
called ``potential emissions'' instead of actual emissions,
EPA is asserting that numerous projects resulted in emission
increases when in reality they had no effect on emissions or
were followed by emissions decreases.
EPA's NSR interpretations have created great uncertainty as
to whether projects long recognized to be excluded from NSR
permitting can be undertaken in the coming months to assure
adequate and reliable energy supplies. Electric utilities and
refineries have expected that they could undertake
maintenance activities, modest plant expansions, and
efficiency improvements without going through lengthy and
extraordinarily costly NSR permitting, as long as the project
involved either routine maintenance or no significant
increase in actual emissions.
Now, in light of the new interpretations, utilities and
refineries find themselves in a position where they cannot
undertake these very desirable and important projects. This
is not an acceptable result when the nation is faced with
severe strains on existing facilities. Against this backdrop,
we strongly urge that the National Energy Policy Development
Group:
Give investigation of EPA's implementation of its NSR
requirements a high priority;
Suspend EPA's activities until such time as there has been
a thorough review of both the policy and its implications;
Clarify whether the implications of EPA's new NSR
interpretations and its enforcement initiative are being
reviewed by the White House Office of Energy Policy and the
Secretary of Energy prior to actions that could undermine
energy and fuel supply; and
Establish guidelines to assure that EPA's application and
enforcement of its NSR requirements will not interfere with
the Administration's energy and fuel supply policy.
Requirements should be developed, which are consistent with
responsible implementation of the statutory NSR requirements.
Specifically, to assist you in assessing the implications
of NSR on meeting the nation's energy and fuel supply
demands, you may want to obtain the following: (1) all
requests since January 1, 1998 for information under section
114 of the Clean Air Act issued to facilities and companies
in any sector involved in energy and fuel supply; and (2)
notices of violation issued to, and complaints filed against,
any such company and/or facility alleging NSR violations
during that period. We are submitting a similar request to
EPA today.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look
forward to working with you in the future to develop
environmental policy, which further protects human health and
the environment and works in concert with sound energy
policy.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator.
John B. Breaux,
U.S. Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I publicly thank the administration for
being responsive to the concerns of Senator Breaux and myself. I know
it took real courage to pursue the NSR reforms. It took courage because
the President knew that many people would misconstrue these reforms as
a ``sneak attack on the environment'' in an attempt to score cheap
political points and fundraise.
Despite the rhetoric we will hear today and have heard today about
NSR reforms and the process of developing these reforms, make no
mistake: President Bush's decision will result in a cleaner environment
and greater energy security.
The Clinton administration developed draft proposals and accumulated
over 130,000 pages of comments on NSR reform. In fact, on his last day
at work on January 19, 2001, President Clinton's air chief with the
EPA, Bob Perciasepe, wrote a letter, No. 1, outlining NSR reforms which
are similar to the Bush administration's NSR reforms and which are
almost identical and, No. 2, calling for the Bush administration to
consider finalizing the reforms.
At this point in the presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have
this letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency,

Washington, DC, January 19, 2001.
Memorandum on the Status of the New Source Review
Improvement Rulemaking:
Over the last two years we have all worked hard to develop
improvements to the New Source Review (NSR) program. As I
have discussed with you, I believe it is essential that this
program have greater incentives for companies to employ the
most effective emission reduction techniques voluntarily and
give greater flexibility when companies take these voluntary
actions. I am writing to share with you where we are on the
NSR Improvement effort as I leave this office.
We have come a long way together in developing the
conceptual framework for how EPA can improve the NSR program
by providing greater certainty and flexibility for industry
without sacrificing the level of environmental benefit
provided by the current program or meaningful public
participation. Due to the array of policy and legal issues
that arose on the vast number of areas we attempted to tackle
in one very large rulemaking, we were not able to complete
the regulatory/packages in this Administration. The concepts
that we developed make both economic and environmental sense
because in return for environmental performance, industry
will receive greater flexibility and more certainty for
business investment decisions. The concepts would not
undercut the basic goals of the NSR program.
The concepts that we developed and which I support are
listed below. I believe many of these could be taken as final
actions because of the hard work we have done together.
Voluntary Alternative NSR Program for the Electric Power
Generating Industry.--This voluntary program would allow
owners of power plants to commit to specific, verifiable
emissions reductions across all their generating units over a
defined period

[[Page S1213]]

of time and in most instances would avoid the need to get an
NSR permit when making changes at their facilities.
Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs.--Source owners would
be able to make changes to their facilities without obtaining
a major NSR permit, provided their emissions do not exceed
the plantwide cap. Also, facility owners that use PALs must
commit to install best controls over time to gain this
flexibility and certainty. PALs would be especially
attractive to those industries (e.g., pharmaceuticals and
electronics) who need to make changes quickly to respond to
market demands in order to stay competitive in a global
marketplace;
Clarifications of Roles, Responsibilities and Time Frames
for Class I Area Reviews.--The process for review of permit
applications by Federal Land Managers (FLMs) would be
clarified to delineate the roles of the source owner, the
permitting authority and the FLM, in conducting permit
reviews for sources potentially affecting air quality near
national wilderness areas and parks (Federal Class I areas).
These changes would reduce delays and disputes associated
with permitting applications for sources near Federal Class I
areas because they would provide a time frame for the FLM to
identify any concerns and analyses needed for the permit
applications. Also, it would clarify that the FLM does not
have the authority to veto permits, and ensure that the FLM
obtains the necessary information to conduct their permit
reviews in a timely manner;
Clean Unit Exemption.--This exemption would provide an
incentive for source owners to install the best emission
controls on new or modified emission units and provide
flexibility and certainty so that most future changes at such
units would not trigger NSR. An owner of an emissions unit
that meets certain minimum criteria to be considered
``clean'' could make most changes to these units without
triggering NSR for a specified period of time, such as ten
years.
Innovative Control Technology Waiver.--This waiver would
provide more flexibility for owners of sources who risk
trying innovative technology that have not yet been proven
effective. Should the innovative technologies not perform up
to expectations, we would provide the owners with time either
to correct the efficiencies or alternatively apply a more
standard control technology;
Pollution Control Project Exclusion.--This would codify our
existing policy that owners of facilities making changes to
their plants that primarily reduce one or more targeted air
pollutants (but which collaterally increase other pollutants)
are excluded from NSR provided certain conditions are met. We
would provide a list of environmentally beneficial
technologies that, absent other information that would
indicate that the projects would not be environmentally
beneficial, would be presumptively eligible for the
exclusion; and
Control Technology Review Requirements.--Because disputes
arise over what control technologies are considered
available, the permit review process can become lengthy. To
improve the process for obtaining a permit, we would (1) add
a definition of ``demonstrated in practice,'' (2) provide a
``cut off'' date for consideration of additional control
technologies, (3) add provisions that specify when
applications are deemed ``complete,'' and (4) require that
control technology determinations be entered into a
clearinghouse before permits can become effective.
Nearly all parties in our discussions identified the need
to have all of the data on the latest control technology
determinations made by permitting authorities in the EPA
clearinghouse. Improving the availability of this information
to everyone will greatly assist the permitting process. To
this end, I have committee significant resources to gather
all of the existing data, input into the database, and
redesign the system to make it easier for all parties to put
in new data to keep it up-to-date.
One of the lessons that we have learned through our ongoing
efforts is that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
improve NSR in one large rulemaking. Instead, I believe it is
best to make incremental changes that will provide
flexibility and certainty without sacrificing the benefits of
the current program. I hope the new Administration will
consider finalizing the concepts described above that provide
flexibility and certainty without compromising environmental
protection to make near term progress. I realize there are
other issues, such as applicability for the base program,
that also need resolution. For these remaining issues,
continued discussions in the context of the overall program
are needed.
I appreciate and thank you for the time, effort and input
that you have provided over the past years, and I believe
that both industry and environment will benefit from the
approaches described above.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I very much look forward to seeing the
fruits of the Clinton and Bush administrations' labors on this issue.
From my tenure as chairman of the Senate's Clean Air Subcommittee, I
knew that New Source Review was a major issue for the energy sector. In
fact, I held the very first congressional hearings on New Source Review
in February of 2000 in Ohio. I could not believe my own ears. We heard
from companies that were trying to make environmentally friendly
modifications to their facilities being stopped dead in their tracks
by, ironically, the Clean Air Act.
I was also shocked to hear that it took 4,000 pages of guidance
documents to explain 20 pages of regulations. That is 4,000 pages of
guidance documents just to explain 20 pages of regulations.
Since then, my shock at the absurdity of the NSR Program has not worn
off. We, as a nation, need to rethink the manner in which we approach
regulations. We all need to keep an open mind during the debates on
various regulatory reform initiatives. I am sick of continually hearing
that these are ``sneak attacks on the environment.'' In fact, just the
opposite is true. If we rethink regulation, we could find ourselves in
a place where we can have far greater environmental protection and more
reliable and diverse energy sources.
Congress and the executive branch must also do a better job of
understanding how the various layers of regulations impact sectors of
our economy. I normally have a chart which shows all of the different
regulations that are going to be hitting the various regulated
sectors--a chart that shows the refiners that are currently working at
almost 100-percent capacity are going to be simultaneously hit with a
number of regulations in the next few years. NSR will make it close to
impossible for refiners to make these environmental upgrades. Now is
the time to work together on these and other regulations to not only
achieve the environmental goals but also ensure no disruption in fuel
supply which would cause the price spikes that we know are inevitable.
Higher energy prices affect everyone. However, when the price of
energy rises, that means the less fortunate in our society must make a
decision between heating their home and keeping the lights on or paying
for other essential needs.
During a recent EPW Committee hearing last year, Senator Voinovich's
constituent, Tom Mullen, articulated this concern. Mr. Mullen stated
that in a recent study--which is well known and very well expected--on
Public Opinion on Poverty, it was reported that 23 percent of the
people in America have difficulty paying for their utilities. That is
one out of every four Americans.
I will not support policies, such as NSR, that will hurt the poor in
Oklahoma and around the Nation. Additionally, the lower environmental
performance resulting from the current NSR Program impacts Americans in
every tax bracket. NSR reforms enjoy the support of a wide range of
interests--from the State attorneys general to labor unions to business
groups.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers in support of NSR reform.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Chamber of Commerce

of the United States of America,

Washington, DC, July 15, 2002.
Hon. James Inhofe,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: I am writing on behalf of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce (U.S. Chamber), the world's largest
business federation, representing more than three million
businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and
region, to express our support for reform of the new source
review (NSR) program. NSR, in its current form has impeded
environmental progress and energy production for decades. The
revisions recently announced by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) are a good beginning to reforming a
deeply flawed program.
The NSR program concerns the Clear Air Act (CAA) emissions
standards applicable to significant new and modified
stationary sources. In 1980, EPA established a regulatory
exclusion for ``routine maintenance.'' The scope of this
term, however, remains subject to debate. A clear
administrative interpretation of ``routine maintenance''
would be an improvement over the present situation, which is
mired in complexity and confusion.
Reducing the problems with the NSR program is vital.
Governments should not unnecessary impede the work of the
private sector. The NSR program is a classic example of
bureaucratic complexity. More than 20 years after the initial
regulation, a plant manager cannot determine with any
certainty whether planned maintenance activities will subject
the facility to millions of dollars of extra costs.

[[Page S1214]]

The NSR program, as presently constituted, is a severe
impediment to increasing domestic energy supply. Electric
generating plants cannot make even minor changes in to their
operations without running the risk of ruinous enforcement
actions that would impose huge fines and enormous compliance
costs on their facility. National energy policy, indeed
national security, requires the removal of every obstacle to
increased domestic energy production.
The National Energy Policy Report directed EPA to review
the NSR program, and report on its effect on environmental
protection and energy production. EPA's review found that the
NSR program has impeded or resulted in the cancellation of
projects that would maintain or improve reliability,
efficiency, or safety of existing power plants and
refineries.
On June 13, 2002, EPA announced a set of revisions to the
NSR program. Among other changes, facilities would be able to
make physical changes to their plants without obtaining an
NSR permit, if their emissions do not exceed a plantwide cap.
Projects would be excluded from NSR requirements if they
result in a net overall reduction of air pollutants. EPA
would also establish a safe harbor test. Projects whose
aggregate costs are below the threshold established by the
safe harbor test would be exempt from NSR requirements.
These proposals promise a major improvements to the NSR
program. They will lead to improvements in the environment,
as regulatory certainty will allow facilities to perform
routine maintenance and repairs without the fear of
triggering NSR requirements. Plants have deferred routine
maintenance, which would have improved safety and decreased
emissions, due to the potential costs of NSR requirements.
With the NSR program modifications, overall emissions will be
reduced. The reforms, particularly the plantwide cap, will
benefit facilities by allowing increased operational
flexibility. The revised NSR program will simplify an overly
complex program.
The recently announced NSR reforms are log overdue. The
regulations to be made final later this year were proposed in
1996. The proposals requiring notice and comment rulemaking
will not be in effect until 2004, at the earliest.
The U.S. Chamber supports reform of the NSR program. The
U.S. Chamber urges the Senate to encourage these efforts to
improve environmental progress and energy production.
Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten,

Executive Vice President,
Government Affairs.
____

Statement of Ande Abbott, Director, Legislative Department,
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers on the New Source Review
Program

Chairman Jeffords, Chairman Leahy, and members of the
Committees, my name is Ande Abbott and I am the Director of
Legislation for the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, AFL-CIO. I thank you for this opportunity to present
our views.
Commonly referred to as the Boilermakers Union, we are a
diverse union representing over 100,000 workers throughout
the United States and Canada in construction, repair,
maintenance, manufacturing, professional emergency medical
services, and related industries. Boilermakers, who make and
maintain industrial boilers and the pollution control
equipment they use, have had a long-time commitment to a
clear, effective and reasonable new source review (``NSR'')
policy. We support the recent efforts of this Administration
to clarify the program. The efficiency of our facilities and
the safety of our workers hang in the balance.
First, let me be clear today that Boilermakers do not
oppose the Clean Air Act, nor do we oppose its rigorous
enforcement. In fact, construction lodges of our union look
forward to doing much of the actual work for the installation
of new technologies and controls at utility plants and for
industrial boilers across this region and the country. In
reference to the NOX control program alone, our
international President Charlie Jones recently wrote:
``The EPA estimates that compliance measures will cost
about $1.7 billion a year. A sizable portion of that money
will go to the Boilermakers who do the work necessary to make
the additions and modifications required by the SCR
technology.''
Aside from NOX control, Boilermakers have always
led the way on Clean Air Act issues. For example,
Boilermakers were pioneers in installation of scrubbers and
further in fuel-substitution programs at our cement kiln
facilities. In short, Boilermakers have been there to meet
the challenges of the Clean Air Act, to the benefit our
members and all Americans that breathe clean air.
However, Boilermakers could not support the EPA's 1999
recent interpretation of its authority under the New Source
Review program. NSR, correctly interpreted as we believe the
Administration's clarification does, forces new sources or
those undergoing major modifications, to install new
technology, like the technology President Jones mentioned. We
support NSR in that context.
But, when NSR is applied to the routine maintenance
policies and schedules of existing facilities, very different
results occur. In those cases, facilities are discouraged
from undertaking routine actions for fear of huge penalties
or long delays or both. By applying NSR in that way, we are
pretty sure that Boilermakers won't have the opportunity to
work on maintenance projects that we know are extremely
important to energy efficiency. Just hearing about recent
events in California is enough to make the case that
facilities need to be as efficient as possible. We now have
read that New York may be facing similar problems. The New
York Times reported just a few days ago that, the State ``is
unexpectedly facing the potential for serious power shortages
over the next couple of months.'' Now is definitely not the
time to play with the reliability of a power grid.
Efficiency is not the only reason to encourage routine
maintenance. Experienced professionals or Boilermakers new to
the trade can both tell you: maintenance is necessary to
maintain worker safety. Electric generating facilities
harness tremendous forces: superheater tubes exposed to flue
gases over 2000 degrees; boilers under deteriorating
conditions; and parts located in or around boilers subjected
to both extreme heat and pressure. Any EPA interpretation
which creates incentives to delay maintenance is simply
unacceptable to our workers.
Some critics of the June 13 action by the Administration
have contended that the NSR decision was made with
insufficient attention to public process. This simply has not
been the experience of the Boilermakers or other unions
working on this project. The U.S. EPA held four public
hearings in each region of the country. Paul Kern, the
recording secretary of our Local 105 in Piketon, Ohio,
offered a statement at the hearing in Cincinnati. In
addition, it is our understanding that over 130,000
rulemaking comments were received on this initiative. Given
our experience with certain regulations that just seem to
appear over night, the Administration's action NSR seem
pretty open and fair to us. When you compare the current
clarification to the way the program changed in 1999--without
any rulemaking process whatsoever--the Administration's June
13 announcement looks all the better!
Boilermakers are not just workers; they are also consumers
of electricity that work hard for their wages. One item often
lost in the mess regarding NSR is that capital expenditures
not justified for environmental protection are still passed
along to ratepayers. Unfortunately, the less money you make,
the greater the percentage of your paycheck goes to your
electricity bills. According to Energy Information
Administration data, those living at or near the poverty
level pay 4 to 6 times the percentage of their income for
power. So, advocates of misusing the NSR program hurt those
least able to afford it the most!
As you can see, Boilermakers have never asked for repeal or
substantial revision of the NSR program. We encourage the
development and installation of new technology, and we stand
ready to continue to train and apprentice workers to meet the
needs of the Clean Air Act. However, when the NSR programs
goes where it wasn't intended--and discourages the very
maintenance, repair and replacement activities that
constitute the livelihood of Boilermakers--we must strongly
object. Thanks for the opportunity to make a statement.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the environmental community does not have
to answer to the American people when energy prices go through the
roof. But the President of the United States does, and we do, too. I
think the President is doing the right thing, and we should support him
for it.
So, in summary, this is one of the rare things that both the Clinton
administration and the Bush administration have proposed which enjoys
support by virtually all the labor unions as well as the business
organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations,
and the American people who want lower cost energy.
Mr. President, I am offering a second-degree amendment to Senator
Edwards' rider on the New Source Review. In his amendment, Senator
Edwards asks the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the
impacts of implementing the NSR reform package and to delay the reforms
in the interim.
In our judgment, there is no reason for this delay. We have delayed
already for 10 years. We have been living with this thing for 10 years.
We need reforms now.
Therefore, I am offering a second-degree amendment to allow the NSR
final package to move forward, but to allow the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a study. When the NAS completes its study, the EPA
can then benefit from its results. I suggest that the National Academy
of Sciences will be getting their information from the EPA because they
are the ones who have accumulated all the data to date, and there is no
more data that is available. There is nothing to be lost by offering
this as a second-degree amendment. You would have the benefit of the
NAS study as well as moving along the time for implementation.

[[Page S1215]]

There is simply no reason to delay the implementation of the final
NSR package. The Edwards amendment calls for a study before the final
New Source Review rules go final. I guess the Senator from North
Carolina has not read the administrative record on the regulations. If
he had, he would see that the EPA conducted a thorough environmental
analysis of the final NSR proposals.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC, January 19, 2001.

memorandum

Subject: Status of the New Source Review Improvement
Rulemaking.
To: New Source Review Stakeholders.
From: Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator.
Over the last two years we have all worked hard to develop
improvements to the New Source Review (NSR) program. As I
have discussed with you, I believe it is essential that this
program have greater incentives for companies to employ the
most effective emission reduction techniques voluntarily and
give greater flexibility when companies take these voluntary
actions. I am writing to share with you where we are on the
NSR Improvement effort as I leave this office.
We have come a long way together in developing the
conceptual framework for how EPA can improve the NSR program
by providing greater certainty and flexibility for industry
without sacrificing the level of environmental benefit
provided by the current program or meaningful public
participation. Due to the array of policy and legal issues
that arose on the vast number of areas we attempted to tackle
in one very large rulemaking, we were not able to complete
the regulator/packages in this Administration. The concepts
that we developed make both economic and environmental sense
because in return for environmental performance, industry
will receive greater flexibility and more certainty for
business investment decisions. The concepts would not
undercut the basic goals of the NSR program.
The concepts that we developed and which I support are
listed below. I believe many of these could be taken as final
actions because of the hard work we have done together.
Voluntary Alternative NSR Program for the Electric Power
Generating Industry--This voluntary program would allow
owners of power plants to commit to specific, verifiable
emissions reductions across all their electric generating
units over a defined period of time and in most instances
would avoid the need to get an NSR permit when making changes
at their facilities.
Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs)--Source owners would
be able to make changes to their facilities without obtaining
a major NSR permit, provided their emissions do not exceed
the plantwide cap. Also, facility owners that use PALs must
commit to install best controls over time to gain this
flexibility and certainty. PALs would be especially
attractive to those industries (e.g., pharmaceuticals and
electronics) who need to make changes quickly to respond to
market demands in order to stay competitive in a global
marketplace.
Clarifications of Roles Responsibilities and Time Frames
for Class I Area Reviews--The process for review of permit
applications by Federal Land Managers (FLMs) would be
clarified to delineate the roles of the source owner, the
permitting authority and the FLM, in conducting permit
reviews for sources potentially affecting air quality near
national wilderness areas and parks (Federal Class I areas).
These changes would reduce delays and disputes associated
with permitting applications for sources near Federal Class I
areas because they would provide a time frame for the FLM to
identify any concerns and analyses needed for the permit
applications. Also, it would clarify that the FLM does not
have the authority to veto permits, and ensure that the FLM
obtains the necessary information to conduct their permit
reviews in a timely manner.
Clean Unit Exemption--This exemption would provide an
incentive for source owners to install the best emission
controls on new or modified emission units and provide
flexibility and certainty so that most future changes at such
units would not trigger NSR. An owner of an emissions unit
that meets certain minimum criteria to be considered
``clean'' could make most changes to these units without
triggering NSR for a specified period of time, such as ten
years.
Innovative Control Technology Waiver--This waiver would
provide more flexibility for owners of sources who risk
trying innovative technologies that have not yet been proven
effective. Should the innovative technologies not perform up
to expectations, we would provide the owners with time either
to correct the deficiencies or alternatively apply a more
standard control technology.
Pollution Control Project Exclusion--This would codify our
existing policy that owners of facilities making changes to
their plants that primarily reduce one or more targeted air
pollutants (but which collaterally increase other pollutants)
are excluded from NSR provided certain conditions are met. We
would provide a list of environmentally beneficial
technologies that, absent other information that would
indicate that the projects would not be environmentally
beneficial, would be presumptively eligible for the
exclusion.
Control Technology Review Requirements--Because disputes
arise over what control technologies are considered
available, the permit review process can become lengthy. To
improve the process for obtaining a permit, we would (1) add
a definition of ``demonstrated in practice,'' (2) provide a
``cut off'' date for consideration of additional control
technologies, (3) add provisions that specify when
applications are deemed ``complete,'' and (4) require that
control technology determinations be entered into a
clearinghouse before permits can become effective.
Nearly all parties in our discussions identified the need
to have all of the data on the latest control technology
determinations made by permitting authorities in the EPA
clearinghouse. Improving the availability of this information
to everyone will greatly assist the permitting process. To
this end, I have committed significant resources to gather
all of the existing data, input it into the database, and
redesign the system to make it easier for all parties to put
in new data to keep it up-to-date.
One of the lessons that we have learned through our ongoing
efforts is that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
improve NSR in one large rulemaking. Instead, I believe it is
best to make incremental changes that will provide
flexibility and certainty without sacrificing the benefits of
the current program. I hope the new Administration will
consider finalizing the concepts described above that provide
flexibility and certainty without compromising environmental
protection to make near term progress. I realize there are
other issues, such as applicability for the base program,
that also need resolution. For these remaining issues,
continued discussions in the context of the overall program
are needed.
I appreciate and thank you for the time, effort and input
that you have provided over the past years, and I believe
that both industry and the environment will benefit from the
approaches described above.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to read from the EPA's own
environmental analysis:

The overall effect of the final rule will be a net benefit
to the environment.

My second-degree amendment calls for a NAS study to look at the
impacts of the regulation after implementation of the final rules while
allowing the regulations to go forward, thus allowing cleaner and more
efficient technologies to be installed in our Nation's manufacturing
centers.
Delaying these regulations would delay projects to create safer
workplaces. The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, a member of
the AFL-CIO, has recently opined against the proposed delay in the
final package on the New Source Review. I would like to read just a
small part of their letter and then will have the rest of the letter
printed in the Record. This letter is a current letter dated today from
the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. It says:

We have encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency to
clarify the program as soon as possible, and oppose efforts
in Congress to slow reform down. The efficiency and
competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our
workers hang in the balance. This is a jobs and safety issue
for millions of American workers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers,
Fairfax, VA, January 21, 2003.
Re Opposition to Appropriations Rider Delaying New Source
Review Reform.

Senator John Edwards,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Edwards: On behalf of the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, ALF-CIO, I am writing to express our
support for clarification of the New Source Review, or NSR,
program and our opposition to any effort to derail NSR
clarification through the appropriations process. Therefore,
we urge you and your colleagues not to offer an
appropriations rider delaying implementation of the final NSR
rules.
Commonly referred to as the Boilermakers Union, we are a
diverse union representing over 100,000 workers throughout
the United States and Canada in construction, repair,
maintenance, manufacturing, professional emergency medical
services, and related industries. Boilermakers, who make and
maintain industrial boilers and the pollution control
equipment they use, have had a long-time commitment to a
clear, effective and reasonable NSR policy. We have
encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

[[Page S1216]]

to clarify the program as soon as possible, and oppose
efforts in Congress to slow reform down. The efficiency and
competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our
workers hang in the balance. This is a jobs and safety issue
for millions of American workers.
First, let me be clear today that Boilermakers do not
oppose the Clean Air Act, nor do we oppose its rigorous
enforcement. In fact, construction lodges of our union look
forward to doing much of the actual work for the installation
of new technologies and controls at utility plants and for
industrial boilers across this region and the country. In
reference to the NOX control program alone, our
international President Charlie Jones recently wrote:
``The EPA estimates that compliance measures will cost
about $1.7 billion a year. A sizeable portion of that money
will go to the Boilermakers who do the work necessary to make
the additions and modifications required by the SCR
technology.''
NSR, correctly interpreted as we hope EPA's new rules will
do, forces new sources or those undergoing major
modifications, to install new technology, like the technology
President Jones mentioned. We support NSR in that context.
However, when NSR is applied in an unclear or inflexible
manner to existing facilities, very different results occur.
In those cases, facilities are discouraged from undertaking
appropriate actions for fear of huge penalties or long delays
or both. By applying NSR in that way, we are pretty sure that
Boilermakers won't have the opportunity to work on projects
that we know are extremely important to energy efficiency.
Further, by reducing the useful economic life of boilers or
by inaccurately setting baselines, the existing NSR confusion
undermines the competitiveness of American job sites. And
that means some of the almost 20 million manufacturing jobs
at stake in heavy industry are placed at risk.
Finalizing new NSR rules is also important to maintain
worker safety. Industrial and utility boilers harness
tremendous forces: superheater tubes exposed to flue gases
over 2000 degrees; boilers under deteriorating conditions;
and parts located in or around boilers subjected to both
extreme heat and pressure. Any delay of these important EPA
rules is simply unacceptable to our workers.
Some have argued that the final NSR rules can await further
study. However, the U.S. EPA held four public hearings in
each region of the country on the proposal. Paul Kern, the
recording secretary of our Local 105 in Piketon, Ohio,
offered a statement at the hearing in Cincinnati. In
addition, it is our understanding that over 130,000
rulemaking comments were received on this initiative, and
over 50 stakeholder meetings were held.
As you can see, Boilermakers have never asked for repeal or
substantial revision of the NSR program. We encourage the
development and installation of new technology, and we stand
ready to continue to train and apprentice workers to meet the
needs of the Clean Air Act. However, when the NSR program
goes where it wasn't intended--and creates uncertainty
regarding the very livelihood of Boilermakers--we must
strongly object. Therefore, we ask you and your colleagues
not to offer any appropriations rider delaying the final NSR
rules.
Sincerely,
Ande Abbott,
Director of Legislation.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, some supporters of the Edwards rider in
its current form suggest that delay is justified because State
officials seek it. Nothing could be further from reality. Two years
ago, a unanimous resolution of the National Governors Association was
passed. It says:

New Source Review requirements should be reformed to
achieve improvements that enhance the environment and
increase energy production capacity, while encouraging energy
efficiency, fuel diversity and the use of renewable
resources.

The Nation's environmental commissioners passed a subsequent
amendment, stating:

The Environmental Council of the States adopts the
provisions of the NGA [the National Governors' Association]
policy. The Environmental Council of the States encourages
the United States EPA to reform the New Source Review
Regulations into a workable regulation that is easily
understood and effectively implemented.

These positions reflect the true direction of the majority of States.
I think there is a propensity in this body for us to think that wisdom
in Washington is greater than that of the States. That is not true. So
you have a unanimous resolution from the Governors as well as the
Environmental Council of the States.
The bottom line is this: My second-degree amendment allows the EPA
and the States to benefit from the wisdom of the National Academy of
Sciences on the important issues of clean air policy. However, my
amendment does not create potential dangers inherent in delaying the
onset of the important and thoughtful administrative reforms of the NSR
program.
So I offer a second-degree amendment to the Edwards first-degree
amendment No. 67 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 86 to amendment No. 67.

The amendment is as follows:
On page 1, strike all after ``Sec.'' and insert the
following:
`` . (a) Cooperative Agreement.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
to evaluate the impact of the final rule relating to
prevention of significant deterioration and nonattainment new
source review, published at 67 Fed. Reg. 80186 (December 31,
2002). The study shall include--
(1) increases or decreases in emissions of pollutants
regulated under the New Source Review program;
(2) impacts on human health;
(3) pollution control and prevention technologies installed
after the effective date of the rule at facilities covered
under the rulemaking;
(4) increases or decreases in efficiency of operations,
including energy efficiency, at covered facilities; and
(5) other relevant data.
(b) Deadline.--The NAS shall submit an interim report to
Congress no later than March 3, 2004, and shall submit a
final report on implementation of the rules.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my friend will withhold, I have a couple
comments I would like to make.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am glad to withhold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the second-degree
amendment of my friend, the chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee. The amendment offered by Senator Edwards, and
cosponsored by Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Daschle, and Senator Reid
of Nevada, really is a very modest amendment.
This administration has gone ahead with the most radical rewriting of
the clean air rules in 30 years. Let me repeat that. The
administration, administratively, has caused the most radical rewriting
of the clean air rules in 30 years. They have not studied what the
effects of these rules will be for people's health and the environment.
I think Senators on both sides of the gaisle have asked for this study.
They have refused to do it.
This amendment simply says, let's wait 6 months--just 6 months--and
get a real study of how this amendment will affect people. Our
amendment says, because these rules have the potential to be harmful,
we should study them first to make sure we know how they will affect
people's health. The amendment says, let's wait until we get that
settled--6 months, a half a year--before letting the rules become
final.
The second-degree amendment says: Yes, we need to study those rules,
but let's have the study after the rules go into effect; that is, let
the rules go into effect first; and, second, we will study the effects.
That means you are rolling the dice with people's health.
What this second-degree amendment says is, we will take our chances
with the health of your children, with the health of your parents. What
we say is, let the amendment go into effect after we have studied the
issue.
What are we going to do a year from now if this study shows--and I am
confident it will--that these radical changes will have made people's
health worse? What are we going to say to senior citizens who are
suffering from respiratory illnesses, as a great deal do?
It was less than a year ago that one of the weekly magazines--I
believe it was Newsweek; ran a front-page article that talked about the
asthma epidemic sweeping this country afflicting our children. Although
they do not determinatively know why, one of the conclusions they
arrive at is because of the bad air. However, I don't think we need
scientific studies to show that.
By allowing the administration to go forward with this rule, what we
are really saying is we do not care. We want these companies to go
ahead and be able to continue their polluting--yet we only studied two
companies.
We hear that the Environmental Protection Agency today has actually

[[Page S1217]]

done the environmental analysis and it shows that these radical rule
changes would protect the environment. That is foolishness. It is not
true.
The EPA gave us hundreds of pages of old, irrelevant reports.
They said their assessment was qualitative and not quantitative. That
is a buzzword for ``we have done nothing.'' It means they didn't do
real hard research in how these changes would affect people, children
with asthma, and seniors with respiratory illness.
One group did the real hard research. The Environmental Integrity
Project looked at two factories and found that just with these two
factories, the administration rules would increase pollution by more
than 120 tons a year. One of these EPA studies done by the current
Environmental Protection Agency points to Delaware as a model.
Companies in Delaware have taken some good measures to reduce
pollution. That is true. But as industries in Delaware have pointed out
and as Senator Biden has pointed out, this administration is not
following the Delaware model. They are following a different and anti-
environmental model.
The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina does not discourage
energy efficiency. All of us support more energy efficiency. We support
reform of the New Source Review. We want to reduce pollution at the
same time as we reform. We don't want reform being an excuse to
increase pollution. The new rules would increase pollution.
Again, the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina is a modest
amendment. It says: Look before you leap. However, what we are being
told to do with the second-degree amendment is look after you leap.
That is not the same.
Look before you leap; that is what we should do. The second-degree
amendment is misguided, misdirected. It takes away from the importance
and the dignity of the amendment offered by the Senator from North
Carolina which simply says, the President wants to move forward with
radical changes in the Clean Air Act, an act which has been in effect
for some 30 years, so before we do this, let's first wait 6 months to
see if the changes the administration suggested will hurt the
environment.
I certainly hope the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina
passes in its form before the Senate and that the second-degree
amendment does not pass. I say that because if you look at the track
record of the administration, you are looking at a track record that is
not good.
We know the administration came out initially with an effort to
change the arsenic standards in water. We were able to turn that back.
We know the administration has worked very hard to make sure that the
rules relating to testing children to find out if lead in their
environment is bad--they tried to eliminate that. We were able to stop
that.
Clean water: The administration proposed earlier this month changes
for managing waterways under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rules
would affect enforcement of the Clean Water Act by defining protected
and unprotected lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. This rule would
remove 20 million acres of wetlands from protection.
On January 3--just a few weeks ago--the administration issued
categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act for
certain timber projects. As a result, the agency will be able to
approve logging in burned, diseased, and insect-infested forests
without completing individual environmental reviews.
On December 31, the administration proposed regulations that would
allow tuna caught by encircling dolphins to be labeled ``dolphin
safe.'' For the last 5 years, tuna caught using dolphins as targets
were barred from bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label.

Two days after Christmas, the administration came up with a Christmas
present when they issued new guidelines that would allow more
development of wetlands and additional mitigation. However, the
existence of wetlands is important because they filter drinking water,
retain flood waters, and support wildlife.
The administration on December 23--2 days before Christmas--issued a
final rule that would allow States to claim ownership of roads in
national parks, forests, wilderness areas, and other public lands.
Under this rule, States could assert claims to thousands of miles of
dirt roads, trails, and wagon tracks--many of which are in wilderness
areas and other public lands.
On December 19, the administration issued a cost-benefit report
calling for more than 300 rules to be revised and eliminated, or
expanded. These changes affect food safety standards, arsenic in
drinking water, energy conservation standards, and logging in national
forests.
Again dealing with clean water, on December 16 they issued final
regulations under a court-ordered deadline that would weaken clean
water protections concerning concentrated animal feeding operations.
The new rule will affect 15,000 large and medium size U.S. corporate
farms.
On salmon protection, the administration proposed new regulations to
weaken salmon protections and to allow increased logging in the
Pacific.
On November 22 of last year, the administration issued final
regulations that would weaken the Clean Air Act's New Source Review
program. The administration has issued standards relating to drilling
in national parks. They approved natural gas drilling in Padre Island
National Seashore in Texas, the Nation's longest stretch of undeveloped
beach. They are going to take care of that and allow drilling there.
On climate change, on November 20 the chairman of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality said: ``Climate change is a technology
issue.'' He believes technological innovations, not curbs on emissions
of greenhouse gases, are the solution to global climate change.
Snowmobiles, something on which I have worked hard: The
administration proposed to increase the number of snowmobiles allowed
in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks by more than 35 percent,
even though the rangers there must use respirators and masks because
the air is so bad because of the snowmobiles.
Should we not, with a record like this, take 6 months to see if the
rules are going to be bad? I didn't read all of them, but you get the
idea why I am a little suspect about the rules and why we should not
leap before we look. Let's look, have a study done to find out if the
rules are as bad as the environmental community says they are.
I hope the second-degree amendment of my friend from Oklahoma is
defeated and we have an up-or-down vote on the amendment to call for a
study before we enact the very extreme radical rule changes with the
Clean Air Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
First, this has nothing to do with tuna, dolphins, drilling,
snowmobiles in the Tetons. The record of this President has been very
good. We passed extensive brownfields legislation with the help of the
Senator occupying the chair. My amendment included over 200,000
petroleum sites. The record has been good.
It is important, when you are talking about this issue, to talk about
the Bush administration. This essentially came from the Clinton
administration, not from the Bush administration. With the exception of
a few technicalities which have been worked out to everyone's
advantage, this is the Clinton administration's program.
Here is the statement made at the last day of the Clinton
administration by Bob Perciasepe:

Over the last two years we have all worked hard to develop
improvements to the New Source Review program. As I have
discussed with you, I believe it is essential that this
program have greater incentives for companies to employ the
most effective emissions techniques voluntarily and give
greater flexibility when companies take these voluntary
actions.

And so then we had this study. Look at this study. It is 180 pages.
The study comes to the conclusion that the overall effect of the final
rule will be a net benefit to the environment. This is going to benefit
the environment, not hurt it.
When the Senator from Nevada says, what do we say to senior citizens,
I say what do we say to senior citizens when their energy costs go up,
when they already have to decide whether to heat their homes or have
food to eat.
We have studied this matter for 10 years. We don't need 6 more
months.

[[Page S1218]]

However, we are willing to have the NAS do a study, and they will use
the same data the EPA used in coming up with the conclusion that this
is not harmful, but it is good for the environment and health.
I will be joining my friend from Nevada in asking for a recorded vote
on this second-degree amendment at the appropriate time.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, during the last few session days, I have been rising
to bring the Senate's attention to an issue which I think is very
important. We have had a lot of discussion in this body about the
concern for deficits. I share those concerns about how much money we
are going to be borrowing in the future. One of the principal reasons
for these discussions, particularly from Democratic Members, is their
concern that because of these deficits going forward, we cannot give
or--let me put it this way--let people in America keep more of their
money and provide tax relief, as the President has proposed, to try to
stimulate this economy.
The President has proposed in the area of $600 billion in tax relief
over the next 10 years to try to help put more money into the private
sector to help create jobs, secure jobs, and grow this economy. I think
that is a very worthy goal.
Economic growth is vitally important for all of us in America. It
creates job security. It creates new opportunities for advancement. It
increases our standard of living. I believe everybody in this Chamber
would agree that one of our priorities should be to create more jobs
and create a stronger economy. The President has put forward a package
which he believes will do that.
One of the major criticisms against the package is that it adds too
much to the deficit; that while maybe some of these ideas are good
ideas--letting people keep more of their money, providing incentives
for people to invest, businesses to invest in capital equipment,
stopping the double taxation of dividends--all those may or may not be
good ideas, depending on to whom you listen--even if they are good
ideas, we cannot afford it, we simply do not have enough money;
frankly, we are running these deficits, so we have to be fiscally
responsible--I am talking about the Democratic conversations of late--
that we have to be fiscally responsible and not provide this tax
relief.
What I am going to do in the next few days as we continue to debate
this year's appropriations bills, the 2003 appropriations bills--not
next, but this year, since we did not get our job done last fall and
pass the appropriations bills for this year--is I am going to detail
all of the amendments the Democrats are offering and begin to add up
the 10-year costs of these amendments.
We have the first amendment offered by Senator Byrd on homeland
security, which is $70 billion over the next 10 years.
Senator Kennedy's amendment on education was $84 billion, which
brought the total to $154 billion. Senators Hollings' and Murray's
amendment on Amtrak, that was $5 billion over 10 years. Senator
Harkin's amendment, $7 billion over 10 years, and then Senator Byrd's
amendment, which was to basically strip away what was a mechanism to
try to pay for some of these increases such as education and others,
which was an across-the-board reduction, he eliminated the across-the-
board reduction which basically put $154 billion on to the deficit over
the next 10 years.
Pending is Senator Dodd's amendment, which adds $21 billion over the
next 10 years in the area of paying for education for people with
disabilities.
We have already had a majority of Democrats, in fact almost every
single Democrat, vote for $320 billion in new spending and now we have
another $21 billion on which to be voted. There are a whole host of
other amendments which have to be filed by 6 p.m. today, which will add
robustly, I suspect, to this total of $341 billion to date that have
been offered by Members on the other side of the aisle who have come to
this Chamber repeatedly and suggested that, we cannot provide tax
relief to spur this economy to create jobs and to put more money out on
to the private sector into taxpayers' pockets but we can afford almost
half of what the President's tax reduction measure will cost.
It is important to show where the priorities are of the respective
parties. What we have suggested is that to help this economy get going
we need to put more money in taxpayers' hands so we can create a
stronger economy and a better quality of life for people in America.
Many on the other side, not all, have said that is not acceptable.
What is their alternative? Well, this appears to be their
alternative: To grow the size and scope of Government in increasing
amounts.
We made a mistake. We made this chart too small. My guess is by the
time we are done we are going to have a line of charts as to how much
money we are going to add to the deficit at a time when we are hearing
all this gnashing of teeth about the President's tax plan that is
simply too expensive, that it adds too much to the deficit. Yet time
after time Members on the other side are more than willing to add money
to the deficit. As long as we spend it on Government programs, as long
as we spend it on growing the size and scope of the Federal Government,
they are willing to spend taxpayers' dollars and willing to put the
deficit to even higher levels.
To set the record straight, when we hear the debate on taxes, as we
will later this year and we will hear Members coming to the Chamber
saying we cannot afford this tax reduction, remember what they thought
they could afford and that is a much bigger Federal Government, more
tax dollars being spent in Washington, DC, and higher deficits as a
result.
I will be back after each series of amendments we vote on and we will
be adding to this chart. I am hopeful this number of votes for these
amendments will begin to change. Where we look at almost every single
Democrat voting for these large increases in spending, I am hopeful
that at some point there will be a recognition that it is important to
control the growth of Government spending, it is important not to have
big deficits in ever increasing amounts, and we will see some
contraction in these numbers.
Time will tell what will happen in the Senate over the next several
days as we begin to debate more amendments offered by the other side of
the aisle to add more money to the deficit which they decry as already
too big in the first place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Rhode Island will offer a very important
amendment on unemployment insurance. I ask unanimous consent that
following my remarks, the Senator from North Dakota be recognized to
speak for 15 minutes; following that, the Senator from Rhode Island be
recognized to offer an amendment.
I have spoken to the manager of the bill and have indicated to him
that we were going to offer this amendment. I ask unanimous consent,
therefore, that when Senator Reed offers his amendment the pending
amendment be set aside. If there is a problem with that, that would
give time to someone on the other side to be available to object having
that set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. My friend, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, has come
to this Chamber on other occasions with his chart and talked about the
Democratic amendments. What he has not talked about is the fact that a
year ago, we had a huge surplus. There are estimates that it was as
much as $7.2 trillion--some say it was only $6 trillion--over a 10-year
period. As a result of what has taken place with this administration,
that is gone. We are now spending in the red and using Social Security
surpluses to pay for the Bush economic plan.
I was on a TV program with Senator Nickles, who was my counterpart.
The person doing the interviewing showed Senator Nickles a chart. From
the time that Harry Truman was President until today, going through
every President, every President of the United

[[Page S1219]]

States has created jobs, without exception, except the current
President Bush. In fact, he has done so poorly in job creation that he
has lost over 2 million jobs.
I hope the American people understand we are offering these
amendments because we believe the American people deserve more than tax
cuts for the rich.
The present administration's tax cut plan will increase the deficit
by almost $1 trillion over 10 years. I hope my friend from Pennsylvania
would vote against that if he is concerned about deficits, because that
is a huge deficit builder.
Every time my friend, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania,
comes to the Chamber with his chart, we are going to also talk about
what this administration has done that has adversely affected the
American people.
The amendments offered by the Democrats--which are said to be
``outrageous things''--fund school districts around America to take
care of handicapped children. I know that is somewhat radical that we
want to pay for handicapped children to be educated, but that is what
we have decided we would like to do, that we would fully fund the IDEA
program. There is not a school district in America that opposes that.
Some of the other amendments funded the unfunded mandates that have
taken place with our passing the homeland security bill. I know the
State of Nevada badly needs that money because we have been forced to
do things that the Federal Government has passed on to us that we
cannot afford to do. The State of Nevada needs help. That is why today
States have deficits of about $100 billion.
The deficit of the State of California alone is $35 or $40 billion,
but of course it has 15 percent of the population of this country.
So they can bring out all the charts they want to talk about these
amendments the Democrats are offering. The reason we have voted nearly
unanimously for every one of these amendments is because it is the
right thing to do for the people who are not represented by the Gucci
shoe crowd, the big limousine crowd.
My friend from Rhode Island is going to offer an amendment to take
care of about a million people who have no unemployment insurance. The
unemployment rate has increased by millions under this President. It
has gone from 4 percent to 6 percent. Job losses, as I have indicated,
are over 2 million. The private sector has lost 2.4 million jobs since
President Bush took office. Unemployment is staggering. A total of
almost 9 million people were unemployed in December. The length of
unemployment, which is more than 26 weeks, increased by 122,000 in
December alone, the biggest 1-month increase in a long time.

There are a great deal of problems with this economy. We believe
there should be a tax plan to stimulate the economy. What we believe
should take place is an immediate tax cut. It should be directed toward
the middle class. It should have no long-term impact on the deficit in
this country.
I talked earlier about the Bush economic record. It is the only
administration to lose private jobs in more than 50 years. We have had
no other administration that has not created jobs. His dad came close.
He almost was in the negative. He was the lowest we had since
Eisenhower. But it is topped by this President. Eisenhower created
increased employment by one-half of 1 percent, Kennedy by 2 percent,
Johnson by 3.6 percent, Nixon by 2.1 percent, Ford by .18 percent,
Carter by 3.3 percent, Reagan by 2.3 percent, George H.W. Bush by .4
percent, Clinton by 2.6 percent; George W. Bush has lost jobs. He is
the only president whose job creation is in the negative.
We do not need people to lecture us on how bad the Democratic
amendments are. Our amendments are targeted toward American people, not
targeted toward the rich.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Under the previous order, the
Senator from North Dakota is now recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Nevada a
question about what he just stated?
Mr. REID. I am happy to maintain the floor and yield to my friend
from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, what
confuses me about what the Senator from Pennsylvania said, and others
have said, and is disturbing, our friends on the other side of the
aisle have an incredible definition of what constitutes security. The
idea that we would at this moment cut the end strength of the U.S.
military, there would be 100 out of 100 Senators in opposition on the
floor.
The idea that we are like those soccer moms we talk so much about,
they are no longer soccer moms, I suggest. They are security moms. They
are literally worried about whether or not in their children's
schoolyard, in their shopping center, in their daily routine, they and/
or their family might be a victim of terrorism.
If this war is a war the President talks so much about, with good
reason, a war on terror, I assume we are saying the same thing. A war
on terror is not a war that is only being conducted by special forces
overseas, but the war on terror is in the United States.
What is the greatest concern Americans have? It is that something is
going to happen as happened on September 11.
I ask this of these friends of ours on the other side of the aisle. I
think they mean well. They talk about the fact they do not want to grow
government. I ask, How are you going to combat terror in the United
States of America, in Washington, DC; in Omaha, NE; in Wilmington, DE;
in San Francisco, CA; how are you going to confront terror, combat
terror? How are you going to make our nuclear powerplant that is right
across the river from tens of thousands of Delawareans secure? How are
you going to make sure there are no Americans subject to poison gas
attacks, the water supply being polluted, chemical agents, or, God
forbid, biological weapons. The only way to do that, it seems to me, is
with more defense.

What is the defense? That is homeland defense. The defense is the
FBI, local law enforcement; the defense is domestic surveillance,
domestic operations. My friends keep saying they do not want to grow
government. What the devil are they talking about? They just cut 1,100
FBI agents. They shrank government. If tomorrow they took this similar
percentage of U.S. Marines and cut them, we would say: My God, what are
they doing? They are crazy.
A U.S. marine, I ask my friend from Nevada, who is going to confront
a terrorist on the Mall in Washington, DC, or at a nuclear powerplant
in Nevada or Delaware, who will confront that person? Who will track
them down? Is it a marine? A special forces person? No, it is going to
be a law enforcement officer.
These fellows have, unintentionally, I hope, emasculated law
enforcement. They have cut the COPS Program that put 100,000 cops on
the street. They eliminated that. They transferred, necessarily, 570-
some FBI agents out of violent crime strike forces toward terror. They
have reduced the coverage in the States. They have now cut another
roughly 1,100 FBI agents, eliminated any help for local law
enforcement. They ballooned--as a consequence of that, in part--the
budget of all these States, and they proudly stand here and say: We are
not going to grow government.
I raise my hand; I want to grow government to fight terror. I want to
grow the number of FBI agents. I want to grow the number of CIA agents.
I want to grow the number of police officers. I want to grow the
ability to defend my family from a terrorist attack on a nuclear
powerplant in my region, all of which are exposed now. They are
exposed.
I hope my friends, when they come to the floor, will explain to me
why an increase in the deficit to maintain the end strength of the FBI
is less worthy than increasing the deficit over 10 years by half a
billion, counting interest, to give people a deduction, no taxes, on
their dividends.
Mr. REID. If I could respond to my friend, the distinguished Senator,
formally chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations
Committee, the only place the Senator has misspoken is that the tax cut
will be near $1 trillion when interest is included, near $1 trillion.
Mr. BIDEN. I was only talking about the dividends.
Mr. REID. And I say to my friend, the Senator is absolutely right.

[[Page S1220]]

We have to have a secure nation. The amendments we have supported and
were offered by Senator Byrd are amendments that would give the State
of Delaware, the State of North Dakota, and the State of Nevada, a
little bit of relief from the unfunded mandates we passed on.
I also remind my friend from Pennsylvania who was talking about how
bad the amendments were; he talked a lot about the deficit. We are not
talking as ``pie in the sky.'' We, as Democrats, have a ledger you can
look to of success. For the first time in modern history, during the
Clinton years, we were spending less money than we were taking in. The
last year of the Clinton administration, they were coming to us saying:
Better not retire that debt so quickly because you could have an
adverse effect on the economy. I guess someone in the Bush
administration heard that because they listened clearly. Instead of
having a surplus, as we had, they have gone gang busters.
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield briefly--and I will yield the
floor--I appreciate the response.
I have no doubt and I do not disagree with anything the Senator has
said overall, but I am just suggesting that I wonder how any Members
will explain at home, if, God forbid, one of our nuclear powerplants is
blown up; if, God forbid, sarin gas is released in the tunnels under
New York City; if, God forbid, any number of other things I could
mention, which I won't because they will frighten people, happen, I
wonder how any Member will explain how we justified, in the name of not
growing government, reducing the number of what I call domestic defense
officials, the number of FBI agents, the law enforcement agents, the
number of people who, in fact, have as their primary responsibility,
the security of our people. A government's first and foremost
responsibility is security. It is not tax equity, it is security.
Security. I am here to say we are skating perilously close to a
disaster line here for failing to step up to the plate.

My last comment is I made a speech on September 10 to the National
Press Club making the same argument I am making now. It was at that
time thought to be somehow a little bit of--we can't afford it. The
argument I made on September 10 at the National Press Club was we were
ignoring domestic security and international terror at our peril and I
laid out what we were not doing.
Let me say to you, I will be back on the floor again and again
because I do not want my children or my grandchildren saying to me:
Where were you during the war, daddy? Put it another way: Where were
you when we were fighting terrorism, or supposed to be fighting
terrorism? Why were you cutting law enforcement, cutting the FBI? Why
were you cutting the very agencies that were designed to protect our
security, that mom in her living room, her child in her school, her
husband on the subway? Where were you?
I think we are misguided, in terms of the majority view on this
floor. I want to grow government to defeat terror. I want to do it with
people with guns. I want to do it with people with might. I want to do
it with people with intelligence capability. I want to stop it before
it happens. You cannot convince me you can do a better job with fewer
people.
I thank my friend.
Mr. REID. I have a unanimous consent request, if my friend will
yield.
I ask unanimous consent that Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Clinton,
Bingaman, Johnson, and Schumer be added as cosponsors to the Dodd
amendment No. 71.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized under the previous order
for 15 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I came to the floor because I want to talk
about an amendment that will be offered tomorrow dealing with disaster
aid for farmers, but I can't help but comment just a moment on some of
the discussion I heard on the floor as I entered the Chamber, and also
just prior to that, the notion there is one side of this Chamber that
somehow is for big government and there is the other side that is
protecting the American people against big government.
My colleague from Delaware said it appropriately. If you take a look
at the amendments that have been offered and debated, the amendments,
for example, by my colleague, Senator Byrd, are talking about
additional investments in homeland security. Does anyone really think
it is just building big government to care about investments in
homeland security?
Do you know, for example, that there are 5.7 million containers that
come into America's ports every single year and only 100,000 of them
are inspected and 5.6 million containers are not inspected? Do you
think maybe we ought to do better than that? Do you think there is a
potential threat by terrorists dealing with our ports and harbors and
the containers that are coming in from all parts of the world?
If you do, do you really want to stand up and say what my colleague
is trying to do is just big government? Or maybe you want to stand up
and say this is an important investment in the security of this
country. Maybe you want to stop the kind of demagoguery that exists
around this town at almost every turn on almost every subject.

Isn't there a reason to have a thoughtful debate about what kind of
security the American people expect and deserve, responding to the
terrorist threat around the world? I think it ought to be thoughtful
rather than thoughtless, and too much of the dialog I find,
regrettably, is thoughtless.
We have heard, of course, the same dissenting voices. When the
proposal was to create a Medicare program, the dissenting voices were
to say: Oh, no, we can't do that. Create a Social Security Program to
help seniors? No, we can't do that.
It's a good thing this Chamber wasn't filled with people with that
attitude when President Eisenhower proposed we build the interstate
highway system or that wouldn't have gotten built.
I won't go on. I will just say I don't think anyone in here pines for
``big government.'' But I think we want a better country. And some of
us very strongly believe that to have a better country is to decide to
invest in America's kids, to improve education, to make our
neighborhoods safe, to create the kind of circumstances in which we
have economic growth and opportunity, and people have decent jobs--jobs
that pay well, jobs that have security. All of these represent what
will make this a better country--not a bigger government, a better
country. I think we would be well advised to redraw a few of these
charts that we see brought to the floor of the Senate and talk about
what is important to the future of America instead of trading slogans
back and forth.
But that is not why I came to the floor. I want to talk just for a
moment about the issue of disaster aid for family farmers. Last week a
cattle rancher from western North Dakota called and said: I don't want
any political discussion or political talk. What I need to know is,
will there be some assistance for those of us who have been hit by
disaster? Because I just spent 2 hours at my local bank. The fact is,
if there is not disaster aid made available by the Congress to help
those of us who got hit by a natural disaster--a drought that has been
devastating for them--then I am not going to be able to continue. There
will not be any credit for the coming year and I am not going to be
able to continue on my ranch.
There are thousands, tens of thousands of people all across this
country in exactly the same situation, wondering if, during this
disaster, this devastating drought that has been likened in some parts
of our country to the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s--a devastating
drought that is not the fault of farmers and ranchers but that has
crippled their ability to make a living, devastated their livestock
herds and meant that seeds they planted in the spring could not
possibly produce the harvest in the fall--wondering whether, as has
always been the case, whether Congress will do in this disaster what it
has done in previous disasters, and that is say to those farm families:
We would like to extend a helping hand.
We do that in virtually every other circumstance. When there is a
hurricane in one of our southern States, when there is a fire or a
flood or an earthquake, our country is quick to send teams of people
and say: Let us help you. This is a natural disaster. It is not of your
making and we understand the need for our country to reach out and
extend a hand and say let us help you.

[[Page S1221]]

I have always been pleased to say let me be a part of that. I want to
help the people who have been hit hard by these devastating natural
disasters. So my vote has always been yes. My colleagues, fortunately,
have always said the same when it comes to disasters that hit the
family farm. The question is whether we will provide enough help to
allow them to continue on that family farm or ranch.
We are going to offer, tomorrow morning, I believe--at least it will
be tomorrow, I hope it will be the first amendment up--Senator Daschle,
myself, Senator Baucus, and others will offer a farm disaster package
here on the floor of the Senate and that package will be similar to
that which has been offered in the Senate previously and passed by the
Senate previously, $5.9 to $6 billion. It received a very wide margin
here in the Senate. The vote was bipartisan. It was declared emergency
spending, as has always been the case with respect to disaster relief.
And it was blocked. It was blocked by the House; blocked by the White
House. But nonetheless, blocked.
We passed disaster relief on three occasions in the last Congress,
only to see it blocked, and we were unable, then, to get this disaster
relief made available to family farmers across the country.
So, we will try again tomorrow, urging that the Congress pass
disaster relief. We could and should be able to do that in the Senate.
I am reading there are some others with a disaster proposal that is
less than half of what should be available and also providing that
those who had no disaster will get payments. Last week's construct was
a bit different from this week's. But what I read is we will still see,
under the proposal offered by the majority, a disaster relief proposal
that will spread money to those in rural America, notwithstanding who
might or might not have been hit with a disaster.
It is our proposition that only those who have need--incidentally, it
is a wide group of family farmers and ranchers across this country who
have been hit by this devastating drought--it is only those, in my
judgment, who should receive the benefit of the disaster program.
We passed a new farm program last year that would provide better
price supports and that would guard against falling prices. But this
isn't about price support. This is about disaster.
In my part of the country, a fair portion of the crops--particularly
in southern North Dakota--never got out of the ground. In parts of
North Dakota and in parts of much larger areas of the country, if you
saw a picture of the ground that you would have taken during what would
have been harvesttime, you would see something that looked very much
like a moonscape. The seeds were in the ground but the seeds did not
come up. That farmer and his or her spouse would have lost everything.
Many of them right now are visiting with their bankers to determine
whether they will be able to continue on the farm or ranch.
I hope this Congress is ready to say, as it did last year in the
Senate, that we believe we ought to provide a disaster package to
family farmers who suffered this drought disaster.
There are many strikes that are against farmers and ranchers--some
perpetrated by the Congress and some by others, one of which is trade,
for example. I will not spend much time talking about that. But our
farmers have been beset these years by low prices, by bad trade deals,
and by a range of disasters--in some cases too much moisture, and in
other cases too dry, but the result is the same. In both cases, their
livestock herds are decimated. They are unable to raise a crop.
My hope is that by tomorrow we will have sufficient numbers in the
Senate, as we have had on previous occasions in the last year and a
half, who will stand up for family farmers and ranchers and decide
they, too, will support, as they have in the past, disaster relief. My
hope is that by this time tomorrow we will have had the debate,
finished the debate, and had a favorable vote. Senator Daschle and I,
and Senator Baucus and others, have spoken on the floor previously.
Senator Baucus put this in the stimulus plan last year and Senator
Daschle was in the Chamber leading the effort. We have had plenty of
debate on it. It ought not be a mystery for any Member in this Senate
about what is happening in rural America. No one, in my judgment, need
ask the question, including the President of the United States--who,
incidentally, went to South Dakota so often last year that he should
have rented an apartment in South Dakota, and he came to North Dakota.
And within the last couple of years, he has said, oh, by the way, you
family farmers, when you need me, I will be with you. We needed him and
he wasn't with us--last year and now this year. We asked this President
to join us. We asked the Speaker of the House to join us and help us
pass disaster relief at this point.
That is why beginning tomorrow Senator Daschle, myself, and others
will be pushing for an amendment on this omnibus bill. I know there
will be those who will come to the floor--and perhaps one of my
colleagues who spoke earlier today--and say, well, what they are
talking about is big government. What we are talking about is trying to
stimulate the economy and help those in the country who need some help.
One quick way to stimulate the economy in rural America is to help
those farmers and ranchers with some disaster relief, as we have always
done in the past. That disaster relief finds its way into the
mainstream. It supports jobs and main streets and businesses in all of
our communities in rural America.
It is not just about family farmers. It is about the world economy.
It is about stimulating our economy. There is no more quick way to do
that than to include in any stimulus package--in this case to include
in the omnibus bill--a piece of legislation that does what Congress
should have done a year ago but failed to do because the Speaker of the
House and the President blocked it; that is, pass a decent disaster
relief bill in the neighborhood of $6 billion on an emergency basis
that no longer leaves America's food producers in doubt; that says to
those families who are struggling on the farms that we are with you, we
care about you, but when you suffer disaster this country is going to
extend its hand to you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the remarks Senator Reed I be recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have spoken
to the floor staff. Following the statement of Senator Voinovich,
Senator Durbin wishes to speak on the amendment that Senator Reed is
going to offer.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my
understanding that Senator Reed may speak for 10 minutes. Is that
correct?
Mr. REED. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no limit.
Mr. DURBIN. All right. I ask unanimous consent that follow his
remarks I be recognized for brief comments on the same subject. But I
will wait. I think that is appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have to preside at 4 o'clock. May I
ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak at 5 o'clock after I am
finished presiding?
Mr. REID. I think that will be just fine. We will have no objection.
Mr. REED. I have no objection. I think I can assure the Senator that
I will be finished before 4 o'clock.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, may I inquire of the assistant
Democratic leader, when will we get a unanimous consent on the African
famine amendment?
Mr. REID. I have spoken to the majority. They recognize that the next
amendment we want to offer is by the Senator from Florida. We
understand that Senator Inhofe will be ready to go also. I am sure we
will get that consent as soon as the debate on unemployment insurance
is completed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, the unanimous consent
request of the Senator from Ohio is agreed to. The Senator will follow
the Senator from Rhode Island.
The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Amendment No. 40

Mr. REED. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, I call up
amendment No. 40.

[[Page S1222]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself and
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, and Mrs.
Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 40.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To expand the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 2002)

At the appropriate place in title I of division G, insert
the following:

SEC. __. ENTITLEMENT TO ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF TEMPORARY
EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

(a) Entitlement to Additional Weeks.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 203(b) of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 28) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) In general.--The amount established in an account
under subsection (a) shall be equal to 26 times the
individual's weekly benefit amount for the benefit year.''.
(2) Repeal of restriction on augmentation during
transitional period.--Section 208(b) of the Temporary
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-147), as amended by Public Law 108-1, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'' and inserting
``paragraph (2)''; and
(ii) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, including such compensation by reason of
amounts deposited in such account after such date pursuant to
the application of subsection (c) of such section'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(3) Extension of transition limitation.--Section 208(b)(2)
of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-147), as amended by Public Law 108-1 and
as redesignated by paragraph (2), is amended by striking
``August 30, 2003'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(4) Conforming amendment for augmented benefits.--Section
203(c)(1) of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 28) is amended by
striking ``the amount originally established in such account
(as determined under subsection (b)(1))'' and inserting ``7
times the individual's average weekly benefit amount for the
benefit year''.
(b) Effective Date and Application.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to weeks of unemployment beginning
on or after the date of enactment this Act.
(2) TEUC-X amounts deposited in account prior to date of
enactment deemed to be the additional teuc amounts provided
by this section.--In applying the amendments made by
subsection (a) under the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 26),
the Secretary of Labor shall deem any amounts deposited into
an individual's temporary extended unemployment compensation
account by reason of section 203(c) of such Act (commonly
known as ``TEUC-X amounts'') prior to the date of enactment
of this Act to be amounts deposited in such account by reason
of section 203(b) of such Act, as amended by subsection (a)
(commonly known as ``TEUC amounts'').
(3) Application to exhaustees and current beneficiaries.--
(A) Exhaustees.--In the case of any individual--
(i) to whom any temporary extended unemployment
compensation was payable for any week beginning before the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) who exhausted such individual's rights to such
compensation (by reason of the payment of all amounts in such
individual's temporary extended unemployment compensation
account) before such date,

such individual's eligibility for any additional weeks of
temporary extended unemployment compensation by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to
weeks of unemployment beginning on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(B) Current beneficiaries.--In the case of any individual--
(i) to whom any temporary extended unemployment
compensation was payable for any week beginning before the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) as to whom the condition described in subparagraph
(A)(ii) does not apply,

such individual shall be eligible for temporary extended
unemployment compensation (in accordance with the provisions
of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
2002, as amended by subsection (a)) with respect to weeks of
unemployment beginning on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(4) Redetermination of eligibility for augmented amounts
for individuals for whom such a determination was made prior
to the date of enactment.--Any determination of whether the
individual's State is in an extended benefit period under
section 203(c) of the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 28)
made prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall be
disregarded and the determination under such section shall be
made as follows:
(A) Individuals who exhausted 13 teuc and 13 teux-x weeks
prior to the date of enactment.--In the case of an individual
who, prior to the date of enactment of this Act, received 26
times the individual's average weekly benefit amount through
an account established under section 203 of the Temporary
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-147; 116 Stat. 28) (by reason of augmentation under
subsection (c) of such section), the determination shall be
made as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) All other individuals.--In the case of an individual
who is not described in subparagraph (A), the determination
shall be made at the time that the individual's account
established under such section 203, as amended by subsection
(a), is exhausted.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Durbin and several
other of my colleagues in calling for an extension of Federal
unemployment benefits for the 1 million long-term unemployed workers
who have exhausted their benefits and were not aided by the legislation
that we passed on January 8.
On January 8, we passed a bill that extended benefits to unemployed
workers who were cut off from receiving their benefits on December 28.
With the December 28th deadline, approximately 800,000 workers were cut
off from receiving their benefits. We essentially gave them 13 weeks of
extended benefits, but in doing so we neglected to provide additional
benefits for a million Americans who lost their unemployment benefits--
first, their State benefits of 26 weeks, and then their extended
Federal unemployment benefits.
In recent recessions, Congress always acted to respond to the plight
of these unemployed Americans who are searching for work, trying to
maintain their households, and trying to maintain their families. In
the early 1990s, Congress extended benefits five different times--three
of those times during the Presidency of President George Herbert Walker
Bush.
In contrast to the 1990s, the situation is even greater today. At the
end of December 2002, an estimated 2.2 million workers exhausted their
Federal benefits; whereas, in the recession of the 1990s, approximately
1.4 million Americans had exhausted those benefits.
Where is this crisis affecting Americans? It is everywhere. It is
estimated that of these 1 million jobless Americans, about 56,800 are
from Texas; 44,000 are from Pennsylvania; 43,500 are from Ohio; 37,600
are from North Carolina; 53,000 are from Illinois; 20,000 are from
Indiana; 27,000 are from Tennessee; 18,000 are from South Carolina; and
84,000 are from New York. And the list goes on and on.
This is not a rollcall to be proud of because it represents the fact
that the economy is not working. These are not small numbers. We
overlooked a lot of those Americans when we took partial action on
January 8.
This is not just about numbers. This is about people.
I think there is an erroneous perception that somehow these people
are not looking hard enough for work; that they are really the hard-
core unemployed, transient workers; that somehow they just don't
deserve our help. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I will share some stories that have appeared in the press about
people who are struggling with this dilemma of unemployment. I think
you will find these people are very similar to people in your
neighborhoods, in your families. They are Americans who want to work
but in this economy cannot find work.
And there is something else that is going on here, too. This economic
dilemma has some characteristics of a cyclical unemployment cycle, but
many economists believe there are structural issues at work. You see,
this is the situation where, for the first time in recent memory, many
of these unemployed Americans are highly skilled, highly educated, and
highly motivated. Yet they cannot find work.
For example, Laura Carson of Easton, MA, lost her job in July of
2001. She was a human resources executive. She worked for approximately
17 years,

[[Page S1223]]

since she graduated from Suffolk University. She has applied for
unemployment insurance. She exhausted her State benefits, and then she
exhausted her extended benefits. She is still looking. She tried to get
a job this holiday season in a retail shop, but she could not find
work. She is still looking. Just to survive, she has gone ahead and
refinanced her house and taken out a home equity loan. But that is only
putting off the inevitable, as bills keep crashing in upon her.
These are the types of people we are trying to help: Susan Brown of
Chappaqua, NY, lost her job as a consultant 18 months ago. She used to
be a principal in a firm that specialized in Web design. She is one of
the victims of this technological bubble that burst. Her company went
belly-up in 2001.
This is a woman who has worked for 18 years since she got out of
college. She worked through high school and put herself through
college. This is exactly what we like to reward in America: hard work,
discipline, and dedication. She got remarried over the summer and,
ironically--but in this market, not surprisingly--her husband lost his
job, also. She has had to dip into her 401(k) plan to make ends meet.
She is still looking but still very frustrated about finding work. She
said:

There are just no jobs. I can't even tell you how hard it
is.

And prior to her loss of employment, she was making $200,000 a year.
This is an example of this new phenomenon where highly skilled, highly
motivated, highly educated people just can't find comparable employment
in this recession.
Jules Berman of Queens was laid off from his job. He worked for
almost 30 years for a New York candy company. He filed for unemployment
insurance in December 2001, and he has seen his benefits exhausted. He
has never been out of work before in his entire work life.
What you are seeing, again, if you do the math: after 30 years,
seeing middle-aged men and women, who are losing their jobs for the
first time in their work history, who thought--as we all did, our
contemporaries--if you worked hard, got a good education, got in with a
good company and strived and struggled each day, you certainly could
work until you retired on your pension and your Social Security. That
is not the case. And now, at the age of 50, with mortgages, with
children who are going to college, with health care bills and health
care concerns, they are looking for a job.

That is the reality, and it is not just in the Northeast. Eric
Strubble lives in Newcastle, CA. He was laid off from Hewlett-Packard--
another example of the huge downturn in technology companies that has
taken place in the last few years. He has filled the gap with these
unemployment benefits, but, as he said:

Obviously, if we had to live off it, there would be no way,
but it helps stretch things out a bit.

People don't get unemployment insurance because they don't want to
work. It is a fraction of what you make in your salary check each week.
The average unemployment benefit is about $256. It does not make up for
your lost wages. It allows you, as Mr. Strubble says, to ``stretch
things out a bit'' until you get on your feet.
Joyce Smith, 52, of Ardmore, TN, exhausted her $190-a-week benefit in
August. She was a factory worker. As she said:

There's not much out there. They don't want people my age.
It's been a panic and a struggle, and you just go into a
depression.

Gary Hineman of Morgantown, PA, an unemployed steelworker who is 48
years old, has worked his whole life. In fact, he fibbed about his age
at 16 just to get in the Steelworkers Union. He worked all his life,
worked hard, and yet he is looking desperately for work. He said:

If I could speak to Members of Congress, I would tell them
to see how we live and how we feel. They want the economy to
pick up, but there are no jobs to pick it up with.

That is Mr. Hineman. His wife Michelle works as a grocery clerk. They
are getting by on her $15-an-hour job.
Mr. Hineman said: ``That is the only thing I've got going for me.''
These are examples. These are the realities. These are the people we
are trying to help and we should help: hard-working Americans. Yet we
neglected 1 million of them.
Now, as the comments of these individuals suggest, this is a
reflection of an economy that is not working. For the first time in 8
years, family incomes have fallen; poverty is increasing; families at
all income levels are losing their health insurance; gross domestic
product is growing, but it is not growing fast enough to make up the
jobs that are necessary so these people can get back to work.
Indeed, the reality for most Americans today is, they live on their
paychecks not their portfolios. When the paycheck stops, they are in
very difficult circumstances. Our proposal is very simple: Let's give
these individuals some more extended unemployment benefits so they can
stretch it out a bit longer, find that job, make decisions that are
going to get them back in the workforce.
Let me point out that our economy has lost over 2.2 million private
payroll jobs since President Bush took office. The unemployment rate is
currently 6 percent--nearly 2 percentage points higher than when
President Bush took office. Long-term unemployment is very high, and
that is the issue we are dealing with in this amendment: giving some
support to these long-term unemployed.
By the way, I cannot think of a more efficient stimulus program than
giving people looking for work unemployment benefits to tide them over
until they find work. The money goes directly to them and directly into
the economy. So from the standpoint of economic policy, that makes
sense. Certainly from the standpoint of helping citizens of this
country, it makes a great deal of sense.

The unemployment insurance trust fund has a $24 billion surplus. The
funds are there. We should access them and allow these individuals
additional benefits. We have to do more to help working Americans to
make sure they make it through a very difficult, very challenging
economic situation.
We have done it before, and I hope we can do it again. I hope we will
do it again in this bill. This is an issue of great concern for our
economy, but, as I have tried to illustrate with these individual
stories, this is about our neighbors, people we live with back in our
home States, the people we represent, the people who have worked all
their lives; and all they want is a chance to keep their heads above
water until they can find that job, as they look for that job day in
and day out.
I think it is the least we can do for them. I hope we will do it. I
am pleased and proud to be joined by Senator Durbin as a cosponsor. I
know he will return a bit later to make his comments.
I hope we can, in fact, take up this amendment, adopt it on a strong
bipartisan basis, and make sure that all long-term unemployed, not just
those who were satisfied in the last legislation--but all the long-term
unemployed--get a chance for extended benefits.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No. 86

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
proposed amendment to stop the New Source Review reforms from moving
forward, and in support of Senator Inhofe's second-degree amendment. I
am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about this because there is
a lot of confusion among our colleagues and throughout the country over
what NSR New Source Review--means. The program is a policy that is in
desperate need of reform. Reform is critical to public health and the
environment, to our Nation's economy and energy supply, and to the
safety of our country's workforce.
The program was created back in 1977. It simply requires new
facilities to install the ``best demonstrated technology'' to control
emissions. The program also requires older facilities to update their
equipment to ``state of the art'' when they do major modifications. I
underscore ``major modifications.''
When the NSR program was created 26 years ago, Congress believed that
incorporating pollution controls whenever new facilities are built or
when older ones are significantly modified was the most efficient way
of controlling pollution. The EPA issued their first NSR regulation, a
20-page document, in 1980. This implementing regulation excluded from
the definition of

[[Page S1224]]

modification ``routine maintenance, repair and replacement.'' Since
then, the EPA has produced over 4,000 pages of guidance documents in an
attempt to explain and reinterpret the regulations. I say ``attempt''
because in fact the guidance documents are very confusing.
It is important for the public and Members of this body to understand
that the lawsuits blossoming all over the United States for NSR
violations were brought about by an EPA guidance document, not new
regulations, an EPA guidance document in 1998 which changed the
definition of routine maintenance. This continual reinterpretation has
led to confusion, misunderstanding by the EPA, the States, and the
industries affected by the regulations.
This chart, which I have used at hearings before the Government
Affairs and EPW Committees, shows why companies are reluctant to
subject themselves to New Source Review permits. If you were a company
and you were going to do routine maintenance and repair, would you ever
submit yourself to this maze? I am sorry it is in such small print
because my colleagues can't see it. But this is the kind of thing they
are being required to do if they want to go forward with routine
maintenance and repair.
Not only has the situation led to costly litigation, but to a climate
of uncertainty, forcing companies to forgo needed maintenance and
repair work until the regulatory policies are clarified. Ironically,
this uncertainty has led companies to reduce their investments in
cleaner, less polluting technologies for fear that the shifting
regulatory environment would declare such improvements a violation.
While the goal of the Clean Air Act has been to make the air cleaner,
the NSR program has at times worked against this goal and wound up
having the opposite effect.
I want to clarify a very important point often misconstrued by the
opponents of NSR reform. All major facilities are regulated by the
Clean Air Act. No plants are exempt from the Act, and no plants are
``grandfathered.'' All facilities have permit levels that they must
meet for their emissions. They must abide by ozone and particulate
matter standards, what we refer to as maximum achievable control
technology standards, the acid rain program, the NOX SIP
Call, the regional haze program, and a range of other regulatory
programs that apply to each industry or facility. Furthermore, states
implement source-specific emission limits through state implementation
plans that can be set at more stringent emissions levels if the states
deem it necessary.
In fact, as this chart shows, the Clean Air Act has been extremely
successful in reducing emissions of pollutants. Since the 1970s,
emissions of all criteria pollutants--carbon monoxide, lead,
particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide--have
been reduced by 29 percent. This is significant when you consider the
fact that over the past 30 years, our population has increased by 38
percent, our Nation's energy consumption has increased by 45 percent,
the number of miles our vehicles travel each year has increased by 143
percent, and our gross domestic product has increased by 160 percent.

While our country has grown, emissions have decreased. However, I
strongly believe that more can and should be done.
I have worked tirelessly over my entire career to improve our
nation's and Ohio's air quality. In the 1970s, as Mayor of Cleveland, I
worked on this issue firsthand by operating a 57 megawatt municipally
owned utility. I also spent considerable effort as Governor to get 28
of Ohio's counties into attainment for ozone. Through my efforts to
institute an automobile emissions testing program and convince one of
our major coal fired facilities to install a scrubber, all 88 of Ohio's
counties met the air quality standard requirements of the Clean Air Act
by the time I left office.
I have continued this work here in the Senate since 1999. As chairman
of the Clean Air Subcommittee, I have been working to further reduce
pollution from power plants through a multi-emissions strategy. Last
year, we worked on this issue in the EPW Committee. Unfortunately, the
majority moved ahead on a proposal that would have been unjustifiably
devastating to our economy and very costly for consumers and businesses
alike.
In the 108th Congress, I plan to work to craft a bipartisan multi-
emissions strategy that makes real reductions possible right away. I
urge my colleagues to lay politics aside and work with me to improve
public health, protect our environment, provide better regulatory
certainty, and ensure continued access to safe, reliable, and low-cost
electricity.
Mr. President, the NSR program plays an important role in reducing
power plant emissions. It also--this is something that is not well
understood--applies to every stationary source in the country. When
people talk about this, they think it is just utilities that are
involved. Rather, we are talking about refineries, chemical plants, and
manufacturing facilities. NSR applies to all of them, and all of them
out there today are uncertain about what they should be doing and, as a
result, are doing nothing.
The current confusion over NSR is actually contributing to polluting
our air. When NSR is clarified, I am sure that many of these companies
would move on with their programs. They would reduce emissions, and
they would make their facilities more efficient.
It is imperative that the NSR program be reformed if we are to
improve air quality because at present companies either can't or won't
make the necessary changes to improve efficiency and the environment.
Without NSR reform, multi-emissions legislation will not work.
We need to do everything possible to encourage new investments in
more efficient equipment that produces fewer noxious emissions. That is
why Senator Conrad and I, along with 24 of our colleagues, sent a
bipartisan letter to Administrator Whitman in May calling on her to
``complete the [NSR] review and to undertake the necessary regulatory
process in the near future to clarify and reform the NSR program.''
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, May 13, 2002.
Hon. Christine Whitman,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Whitman: The Administration's National
Energy Policy included a recommendation that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a review of the
New Source Review (NSR) program and make recommendations to
improve the program. We are writing to urge you to complete
that review and to undertake the necessary regulatory process
in the near future to clarify and reform the NSR program. We
also encourage you to implement any changes in a way that
protects human health and the environment while providing
regulatory certainty for the electric utility industry and
other industries that must comply with the program while
providing reliable and affordable electricity to consumers.
We have heard of many situations where confusion over the
NSR program is having a dampening effect on utilities'
willingness to perform energy efficiency and environmental
improvement projects. The NSR program needs to be clarified
to adequately define the concept of ``routine maintenance''
to avoid the regulatory uncertainty currently facing
industry. Such clarification would allow companies to repair
their facilities and maintain reliable and safe electric
service for consumers and workers without being subject to
the threat of federal government lawsuits for allegedly
violating vague NSR requirements.
Again, we urge EPA to expeditiously proceed with a
regulatory process to clarify and reform the NSR program.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kent Conrad, George V. Voinovich, Mark Dayton, Byron L.
Dorgan, Jean Carnahan, Tim Johnson, Zell Miller,
Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, Kit Bond,
Thad Cochran, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Evan Bayh, Sam
Brownback, Jim Bunning, Mary Landrieu, Craig Thomas,
John Warner, Pete Domenici, Ben Nelson, Larry Craig,
Mike Euzi, Mike DeWine, Richard Shelby, Mitch
McConnell.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Our letter was bipartisan, nine Democrats and 17
Republicans, all calling for reform. While I am sure all 26 of us would
not necessarily agree on exactly what the reforms should ultimately
look like, we did all agree that we ought to get moving with it. We are
running out of time.
In our letter to Ms. Whitman we also stated:

[[Page S1225]]

We have heard of many situations in which confusion over
the NSR program is having a dampening effect on utilities'
willingness to perform energy efficiency and environmental
improvement projects.

Mr. President, I'd like to share just one of the examples that I am
aware of. For refiners, I am aware of an incident in which tubes on a
reboiler furnace failed, resulting in a fire which damaged the
remaining tubes. New tubes were installed and the unit was back in
production within two weeks. However, they were in violation of NSR due
to the ``actual-to-potential'' emissions test. If NSR regulations were
followed, the unit should have undergone the permit process, resulting
in the refinery being out of commission for five to 18 months. I think
my colleagues should remember that the next time a refinery closes and
prices spike.
Mr. President, the 26 Senators who signed this letter are not the
only ones who think that NSR has prohibited reductions in emissions.
This is really important. In August 2001, the National Governors
Association passed a unanimous resolution calling for NSR reform. Their
resolution states ``New Source Review requirements should be reformed
to achieve improvements that enhance the environment and increase
energy production capacity, while encouraging energy efficiency, fuel
diversity, and the use of renewable resources.''
Furthermore, according to the National Coal Council study,
commissioned by the Clinton administration, if the EPA were to return
to the pre-1998 NSR definitions, we could generate 40,000 new Megawatts
of electricity from coal-fired facilities and reduce pollution at the
same time.
The current NSR program threatens our energy supply due to both
short-term and long-term reliability problems. According to the
Department of Energy, electricity demand is projected to grow by 1.8
percent per year through 2020. At the same time, no new nuclear plants
have been constructed since the 1970s and the number of new coal
facilities has declined significantly since the 1980s. Our nation's use
of coal will continue to increase, resulting in greater demand on our
aging coal facilities. In order to meet the growing electricity demand,
more frequent maintenance and repair work will be needed to keep these
coal facilities on-line.
Another point that needs to be made, which is often overlooked in
this debate, is that the costs of NSR are passed on to the ratepayers.
Somehow people forget that the customer always pays. Too often, the
environment and the ratepayer get lost in the constant duel between
extremist environmental groups and recalcitrant companies.
Higher energy prices will have a more profound effect on low-income
families and the elderly. The Department of Energy, as this chart
shows, claims that those individuals or families making less than
$10,000 per year will spend 29 percent of their income on energy costs,
and those making between $10,000 and $24,000 a year will spend 13
percent of their income on energy costs.
The NSR program not only prevents the installation of more efficient
and less polluting technologies, but it also interferes with safety
improvements.
According to the Boilermakers Union, ``Maintenance is necessary to
maintain worker safety. Electric generating facilities harness
tremendous forces: superheater tubes exposed to flue gases over 2000
degrees; boilers under deteriorating conditions; and parts located in
or around boilers subjected to both extreme heat and pressure.''

Failure to maintain and repair equipment creates a potential danger
to the lives and safety of the men and women who work on these
facilities, and they are not moving forward right now with many of
these repairs.
Fortunately, the EPA has responded to the bipartisan and strong call
for reform of the New Source Review program. On December 31, 2002 the
EPA published a rule that included five reforms of the program. Some of
my colleagues might not know that the final rule was actually proposed
by the Clinton administration. Let me repeat: These reforms were
proposed by the Clinton administration. They are bipartisan.
The reforms are the result of over 10 years of work by the EPA across
three administrations and have involved over 130,000 written comments
in the last year alone. The EPA has conducted a detailed environmental
analysis of the rule and found that the reforms will have a net benefit
to the environment, a net benefit. They are good for the environment.
Again, I want to stress to my colleagues that Senator Inhofe's
amendment will allow us to move forward and help the environment.
This morning my colleague from North Carolina proposed an amendment
to delay the implementation of these reforms for 6 months until a study
is completed to assess their impact. They have been studied for a long
time. On the surface this sounds like a good idea. However, if this
amendment passes, we will delay reforms that have been worked on for
over 10 years and would make improvements in the environment and to
public health today. An EPA analysis already found that the reforms
will have a net benefit to the environment.
Furthermore, Mr. President, contrary to an argument put forth by
critics of NSR reform, EPA has stated publicly that it deliberately
wrote the rule so that current lawsuits would not be affected by the
proposed NSR reforms.
It is my belief that if this amendment passes, it will also seriously
harm the prospects of future reforms to the NSR program. For example,
EPA has proposed a rule to provide a new definition for ``routine
maintenance, repair, and replacement.'' The EPA did not offer specifics
but asked for public comment on a range of options. This proposal is at
the crux of the issue and is imperative. I believe this amendment would
not only delay the current rule from being implemented, but it would
also effectively delay other very important reforms to the program. We
have to get on with it.
I join my colleague and friend, Senator Inhofe, today in the second-
degree amendment he has proposed. This amendment would allow the
reforms to be implemented while requiring the National Academy of
Sciences to evaluate its impact. It allows the reforms to go forward to
stop this state of limbo that exists. At present, nothing is happening.
Companies will then be able to make efficiency improvements and reduce
their emissions. At the same time, the Academy can study the impact of
the reforms as they are being implemented.
Ending the confusion surrounding the NSR reforms will allow companies
to make the investments that are necessary to both increase our energy
supply and environmental protections. We can reduce pollution and
become more energy-efficient. We need to provide both for continued
economic development and protections for public health and the
environment. To meet these needs, we must move enact substantive NSR
reform.
I thank the administration for their work in developing this proposal
and moving ahead with the Clinton era reforms. I urge them to continue
these efforts. Support for these actions is strong and broad-based. The
confusion about NSR regulations is pervasive throughout our Nation,
from the regulated community to the regulators. It must be addressed--
and soon.
Mr. President, I sincerely urge my colleagues to support Senator
Inhofe's second-degree amendment to Senator Edwards' amendment. The
program is broken and desperately needs to be reformed. We cannot
afford further delay.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I thank the Senator from Ohio for the time
he has spent in setting out this issue. Not many people are aware of
the fact that Senator Voinovich was the head of the National Governors
Association Clean Air Committee and has been working on it for a long
time.
I only add to his comments and ask him if he is in agreement that we
have 180 pages here, and almost all of this was done during the Clinton
administration. All the data that would be available for the NAS is
found in the results that are very positive in this report. So I
certainly hope this is an accommodating way for the Senator from North
Carolina to say, yes, we want the input of the NAS; we don't want to
wait 6 more months.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Again, I thank the Senator. I emphasize that 130,000
comments were made last year regarding those regulations that have been
issued by the EPA. So it has been really vetted. People have had an
opportunity to

[[Page S1226]]

participate in this. I support the Senator's suggestion that rather
than ask for a study by the Academy, we delay that and let the rules
be issued, and then let the Academy look at it. That is a much sounder,
more commonsense approach to dealing with this problem.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. VOINOVICH. I am more than happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, would it not be better, rather than having
the rule going into effect and having all the people, from our
perspective, start polluting while the study is taking place, to find
out which side is right? We are saying to have the NAS study the issue,
hold this off for 6 months, and then there should be a determination
made as to whether the rule as proposed by the administration affects
people.
I don't see--and I ask my friend from Ohio, the distinguished junior
Senator--what harm can be done in holding off for 6 months this rule
going into effect when, if we don't hold off, our reasoning would be,
as indicated in the study I talked about earlier today, where just 2
months--2 plans would put into the environment 120 tons of bad things
every year.
Would it not be better to wait and see what the study of the National
Academy of Sciences comes up with before the rule went into effect?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that
the previous administration had been working on these rules. They
started out during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration
began looking at the recommendations from the previous administration.
They subjected them to review by many organizations. By the way, these
rules do not apply to utility companies. They have only proposed a rule
in this regard. What I am saying to Senator Reid and others is that
because the regulations have not been reformed, companies for several
years have done nothing to move forward with installing controls that
would reduce emissions or make their facilities more efficient. I think
we have delayed long enough. It has been vetted.
If someone believes yet another review is necessary, it should be
done after the reforms are implemented. Any additional review should be
done after implementation so that we are dealing with reality and not
speculation. This is very important. I think it is time for us to go
forward with the reforms to allow facilities to do their routine
maintenance and repair work. This will make their facilities more
efficient, reduce their emissions and, in some cases, produce more
energy.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will respond simply to my friend that the
environmental community has a different view. They believe this radical
rule change would simply allow pollution to take place that is not
allowed now.
We hear that the rules the administration has made are the same as
rules made in the Clinton administration. This simply isn't true. Here
is what Carol Browner has said:

Some have suggested that the administration's announced
changes are changes the Clinton administration supported.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Fundamental to
everything we did was a commitment to ongoing air quality
improvements. There is no guarantee, and more importantly, no
evidence or disclosure demonstrating that the
administration's announced final or proposed changes will
make the air cleaner. In fact, they will allow the air to
become dirtier.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we had a hearing in the EPW committee
last year on the rules before they were publicized, and they were
savaged because many people believed the issuance would interfere with
current lawsuits. The EPA claims that the reforms do not interfere with
pending lawsuits for violations under the guidance that was issued back
in 1998.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Amendment No. 40

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak on the Reed-
Durbin amendment regarding unemployment insurance. If another Senator
has been waiting to speak, I will be glad to wait. If not, I will
proceed.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment which has been
introduced by Jack Reed of Rhode Island and myself. About 20 years ago,
when I first ran for Congress, I waited each month for an economic
indicator which really led the debate about the state of America's
economy. That economic indicator every single month was the
unemployment rate. If the unemployment rate in America was high, or
going up, that really consumed all of the political attention of
candidates and Members of Congress. That was considered to be the
yardstick or barometer of how healthy America's economy is. In the span
of time I have served in Congress, that yardstick and barometer has
changed.
We now focus more on the situation of the Dow Jones Index and
Standard & Poor's. We look daily, almost on a minute-by-minute basis,
to the report of the Dow Jones Index as an indicator of our economic
well-being. But I think in so doing, we have overlooked something we
have done for a long time. If the economy is not strong, people do not
go to work. If they do not go to work, they get desperate to keep their
families together, to pay for the basics, to make sure their kids have
the necessities of life, and they struggle to hope that the economy
returns to strength and they can return to employment, and soon.
There is a lot of talk in this Chamber about who is responsible for
this recession. That is a common topic in politics. We politicians
spend a lot of time pointing fingers, saying: This recession really
started the last few months of the Clinton administration; no, no, it
really started in the first few months of President George W. Bush's
administration. Let me for a moment push that aside and suggest that
the families who lost their jobs do not care. They are not interested
in when this started. They want to know when it is going to end so that
if they lost a job and are falling behind, they have a chance to get
back into the workforce.
These are not people who can be characterized as lazy in any way.
They have worked, and worked hard, for a long time, but contractions in
the American economy because of this recession have killed jobs all
across America. During the 8 years of the Clinton administration, we
created 22 million new jobs. During the first 2 years of this
administration, we have lost 2 million jobs nationally, and we are
losing over 100,000 a month. As a result, many people are hard pressed
to keep up with their obligations to their family.
The December 2002 unemployment rate of 6 percent is the highest rate
in over 8 years. According to a Congressional Budget Office economic
forecast, the unemployment rate is expected to remain at that level at
least until the second half of this year, 2003.
Over 1.85 million workers have been looking for work for at least 6
months. As of January this year, more than 1 million workers exhausted
the 13-week temporary benefits extension enacted in March 2002 and
remain unemployed. Employment has declined by 1.7 million jobs since
January of 2001. The decline is slightly worse than the average fall-
off after the last six recessions. While the unemployment rate remains
far lower than at the end of the recessions in the 1980s and 1990s, it
has still risen significantly from its 30-year low of 3.9 percent in
2000, not that long ago.
The reason I raise that point and the reason Senator Reed and I come
to the floor to offer this amendment is to suggest that hundreds of
thousands, perhaps 1 million, unemployed workers in this country are
facing extraordinarily dangerous and difficult times. These are people
who are caught up in the vortex of this recession and cannot get out.
They cannot find work. They drew unemployment for a short period, and
it has been exhausted. They used it all up. Now where are they? They
are stuck in a position where they have to try to meet their monthly
bills and have no unemployment compensation, no prospects for
employment, and the recession seems to be going on interminably.
I asked business leaders of major corporations from my State to give
me their best guess of when this recession would end. Frankly, they
told me--and it was depressing to hear--it might be 2 years. I hope
they are wrong. I hope it ends tomorrow. I hope we see better signs of
encouragement. The fact is, it has not happened.

What have we done in the past when we have dealt with recessions not
even as bad as this one? We said time and

[[Page S1227]]

again if the recession continues indefinitely, we have to step in. We
cannot abandon these Americans who are victims of this economy. Let us
give them a helping hand. Let us do something for their families. Let
us make certain they do not lose their homes to mortgage foreclosures.
This is not a Democratic response or a Republican response, it has been
our American response year in and year out.
Let me give an example. During the recession of the early 1990s
which, in many respects, was not as bad as this one, Congress extended
temporary unemployment benefits five times. During this recession, we
have extended benefits only twice. Of the five times Congress extended
benefits in the early 1990s, three were under President Bush's father
in the recession he faced, and two were under President Clinton when he
took office, and the recession had continued.
This is not a partisan response we are suggesting today. It is
unfortunate only two Democratic Senators would offer this. This should
have been a bipartisan offering.
During the recession of the early 1990s, Congress established the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program which was in place for 30
months, from November 1991 to April 1994. During this recession, we
established the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program
which is scheduled to expire at the end of May 2003 and, therefore,
would have only been in place for less than 15 months. Here we are with
a recession that is worse and a response that does not measure up to
half of what we did during the last major recession we faced.
We passed an extension of unemployment compensation benefits recently
which will provide temporary benefits to some workers. This amendment
which Senator Reed and I proposed will provide assistance for an
additional 53,000 workers in my State and 1 million workers nationwide.
It will provide 13 weeks of additional benefits. Workers in high
unemployment States who already receive 26 weeks of benefits will
receive an additional 7 weeks of benefits. Thus, the greatest number of
weeks a worker can receive is 59 weeks, the same as under the extension
enacted under President Bush's father.
The CBO cost estimate, $6.5 billion, is substantial but still
represents only slightly more than a third of the balance in the
unemployment insurance trust fund, after accounting for the extension
enacted earlier this month. I think the 5-month extension we enacted
was something that was good and it helped a lot of workers, but we
cannot leave out the 1 million Americans who will not be helped by this
action taken just a few weeks ago. One million Americans have exhausted
their unemployment benefits and are stuck in a situation--without a job
in a recession--to which, frankly, we do not see an end. What we are
asking the Senate to do today on this appropriations bill is to think
about those we have left behind. I do not believe it is fair to
characterize the people who are victims of this recession as anything
less than hard-working Americans caught behind the curve of this
economy. I do not care whose responsibility this recession is for this
moment. We can argue about that for a long time, but I do feel a
responsibility to these workers and their families.
In my State, the unemployment rate in November of last year was 6.7
percent. This is a 13.6-percent increase from November of the previous
year when our rate was 5.9 percent. Our unemployment rate in Illinois
sadly is tied for third highest in the Nation. Alaska and Oregon are
higher. We are tied with the State of Mississippi. If one measures the
impact of a recession by the percent change in unemployment rates, this
recession has hit my State twice as hard as the recession of the early
1990s, and as of January 1, 2003, over 53,000 Illinois workers
exhausted the 13-week temporary benefits extension enacted in March
2002 and remain unemployed. Each week, 4,000 Illinois workers will
exhaust their regular State unemployment benefits.

The President, in his radio address a few weeks ago, said as follows:

We will not rest until every person in America who wants to
work can find a job.

Thank goodness. That is a pledge every President should make. On
December 28, in another weekly radio address, the President said, and
this is right after Christmas and we knew unemployment benefits were
expiring:

One of my first priorities for the new Congress will be an
extension of unemployment benefits for Americans who need
them.

The President responded and Congress answered with an extension of
unemployment benefits that took us close to meeting that pledge, but
not close enough for 1 million Americans who were left behind. The
extension of unemployment benefits that the President proposed and
signed excluded 1 million American workers who have been unemployed for
over 9 months and have exhausted all their temporary Federal benefits
without finding a new job.
I have argued in this Chamber today that this is a question of
fairness and compassion. Let me add parenthetically that it is also a
stimulus to the economy. The money given to unemployed workers is spent
almost immediately to meet the needs of their family. It is not salted
away, invested, or saved. It is spent for goods and services creating
economic activity and jobs in a time when this economy dearly needs
that to happen.
I hope my colleagues will reconsider this issue and join Senator Reed
and myself in enacting this amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. NICKLES. I will ask a quick question. I know my colleague
referred to the 1990-1991 recession a couple of three times and alluded
to: We did it then. Why do we not do it now?
Is the Senator aware of the fact that the unemployment rate was 7
percent or more, compared to the current level of 6 percent, when we
passed the Federal unemployment extension in 1990-1991?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I am aware of that
fact, but I hope he is also aware of the fact that the recession we are
currently in also has some economic indicators that are even more
troubling than what we faced in the early 1990s.
I say to the Senator in good faith that I sincerely hope this
recession ends tomorrow. I do not care what the political consequences
are for Democrats or Republicans, but I hope the Senator from Oklahoma
will concede the recession we are in today is unlike those we have had
before. There is high unemployment. Maybe we have not reached record
levels, but there seems to be a resistance to getting this economy
started again. I think that is why we are debating a stimulus and
growth package.
I hope the Senator will concede that, though the numbers may not be
exactly as bad, the depths of this recession and the impacts of the
current recession are really unique and we should respond to them at
least in the way we did before.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak on this issue, but my
colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, was in the Chamber
prior to my arrival so I will speak after his comments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, I think all 100 Senators would
agree, both from the standpoint of our needs for the future as well as
what we have done in the past, that we all recognize the legitimacy of
the Federal Government stepping in to compensate with Federal
unemployment help when State programs have run out. There is no dispute
about that.
There is a dispute over when and how much, and the plan we are being
offered now would be a plan that has been put in place at other times
but under much higher rates of unemployment.
I hope we do not have higher rates of unemployment, but sometime down
the road we will, hopefully not now during this period of time, and it
seems to me we ought to keep reserve to do what we have other times in
the past when we have had higher rates of unemployment than we have
right now, as opposed to triggering in programs that do much more for
the unemployed than we normally do at 6-percent unemployment, let's
say, as opposed to 7-percent unemployment.

[[Page S1228]]

If we were to go the route that is being proposed, then we would be
doing more than we normally do at this rate of unemployment we have
now. Surely, the people who are proposing what they are proposing
today, as all of us would probably do if there is a higher rate of
unemployment, would expect the Congress to respond to that. It is not a
question of should we respond; it is a question of a measured response
and when it triggers in.

I am not condemning people who say we ought to do more today beyond
what States do, but they are responding in a way that we would normally
respond when the unemployment situation would be much more negative
than it is right now.
I think it is wrong for my colleagues to speak about this recession
being different than other recessions, for two reasons. No. 1, the
definition of a recession is two quarters of negative growth. We had
three quarters of negative growth but that negative growth ended
September 30, 2001. So we have had five quarters now of growth, about
2\1/2\ percent average.
Economists are predicting the quarter we are in now for 2003 would be
about 3-percent growth, so I do not think it is fair to say we are in
recession unless we have a Senator who is making his own definition of
a recession--and he has that right--but I think we should be comparing
apples with apples and not apples with oranges.
The second point I make is even if we were just coming out of a
recession instead of being five quarters out of a recession--an
official recession as defined by economists--I think we all need to
remember that historically unemployment as a statistic is a lagging
indicator. So one would expect other indicators of an improving economy
to improve before the unemployment figure improved. Consequently, this
has to be taken into consideration as help is given to unemployed
people.
It is quite obvious that a number of my Democratic colleagues seem to
think we can never spend enough on unemployment. So I want to review
where we are so the record is straight.
Under the regular State unemployment program, workers are entitled to
as much as 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. Under the temporary
federally funded unemployment program enacted last March, those who
exhaust their regular State benefits can receive up to 13 weeks of
additional Federal benefits. In addition, workers in high unemployment
States can receive yet another additional 13 weeks. That is a maximum
of 26 weeks of Federal benefits.
So to some, it works out this way: Workers in every State can collect
up to 39 weeks of benefits, 26 of those being State and 13 Federal.
Workers in higher unemployment States can collect up to a whole year of
unemployment benefits, which means 26 weeks State, 26 weeks Federal.
Last year, this temporary program was estimated to cost $11 billion.
We are still responding, as we should in a bipartisan way, to this
unemployment statistic still being relatively high but not as high as
it has historically been. Earlier this month, in addition to what we
did last March, Congress voted to extend these Federal benefits through
May of 2003. This extension is estimated to cost $7 billion more. That
happens to be a total of $18 billion in federally funded unemployment
benefits. According to some of my Democratic colleagues, that still
seems not to be enough.
Through this amendment, I think they are trying to spend an
additional $6 billion. The amendment they offered today would change
the current law to provide 26 weeks of federally funded benefits in
every State, and 33 weeks in high unemployment States. The last time
Congress provided 33 weeks of benefits, the unemployment rate was well
over 7 percent. That is why I made the point. If we do this, what are
we going to do if unemployment gets up to 7 percent, which I do not
think anybody expects it to but suppose it did? The current
unemployment rate is 6 percent.
Now there is something even more troubling. What I have said until
now has been done by Congress in the past during certain times of high
unemployment. More disturbing to me, this amendment changes current law
to provide a uniform duration of benefits. Most States vary the
duration of benefits based on the worker's actual employment history.
Variable duration recognizes the insurance principles inherent in
unemployment compensation by providing a shorter duration for workers
who had a limited amount of work prior to qualifying for the benefits.
These workers have paid less unemployment taxes and they have less
attachment to the workforce.
Congress has never provided extended benefits without regard to the
duration of State benefits. That is a very dramatic departure that this
amendment holds for the future. A uniform duration means some workers
will be able to collect more Federal benefits than they would State
benefits. Moreover, a uniform duration means some workers will actually
be able to collect benefits for a longer period of time than they
actually worked.
Current law requires a minimum of 20 weeks of work to qualify for
Federal benefit. Yet this amendment provides up to 33 weeks of
benefits. These 33 weeks of Federal benefits could be paid in addition
to as much as 39 weeks of State benefits. That happens to be a total of
72 weeks of benefits for someone who maybe only worked 20 weeks. This
amendment represents the single largest expansion of Federal
unemployment benefits in the entire history.
That brings me to an issue of how, if this were a legitimate approach
to unemployment compensation, this ought to be handled by committees of
appropriate jurisdiction, not be offered on the floor of the Senate to
an appropriations bill. I am speaking because that appropriate
committee is the Senate Finance Committee. We have jurisdiction over
unemployment compensation. A departure in Federal responsibility is
very important to consider as a committee--its impact, its costs. More
important, if we are going to have this sort of an impact that is so
different from what States have historically had, it ought to be
considered by the committee of appropriate jurisdiction. We are dealing
with something that is other than just simple extension of unemployment
compensation.
Now, we may need to revisit this issue later this year, depending
upon how the economy performs. But when we do that, we need to do it in
a way that we take into full consideration that this amendment
represents an unprecedented and, at least at this point with 6 percent
unemployment compared to more than 7\1/2\percent unemployment when it
has been used in the past, an unjustified expansion of the unemployment
program.
I urge my colleagues not to vote for this amendment. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague, the
chairman of the Finance Committee, for his statement. I hope my
colleagues pay attention to it, especially the last part. The chairman
of the Finance Committee said this has not gone through the Finance
Committee, and pointed out several things that sounded like this is
about what we did in the 1990s, but it is not. It is expensive. This is
a different proposal than what we have seen.
We actually had a similar type of proposal that was debated last
year, to which I objected, I believe the Senator from Iowa objected,
and maybe the Senator from New Hampshire objected, that was a doubling
of the Federal program from 13 to 26 weeks. This is a different
iteration of that. It is different--in some cases maybe better, in some
cases maybe worse. The one we objected to last year was a $17 or $18
billion program. The proposal now, we understand from the authors--I
have not seen this from the Congressional Budget Office, but I respect
them and I assume it is correct--says it costs $6.5 billion. Last week,
we passed a bill that cost $7.2 billion. So this is $6 billion on top
of that.
The Senator from Iowa mentioned that this says there would be a
mandatory 26-week Federal unemployment compensation program. Present
law we passed last week is an extension of up to 13 weeks for all
States. There is a big difference in legislative language when you say
``up to'' rather than mandating 26 weeks. One, you are doubling the
program, and you also do not keep it connected to the State program.
Some States have different durations. We have always been tied to the
State program.

[[Page S1229]]

I keep hearing about what we did in 1990; we want to duplicate what
we did in 1990. The chairman of the Finance Committee alluded to the
fact that the 1990 unemployment rate was much higher. It was 7 percent,
7.4 percent, 7.8 percent. The unemployment rate today nationwide is 6
percent. We have a lot of States that are substantially lower. We have
24 States that have unemployment rates at or below 5 percent this
year--now. We have nine States that have unemployment levels between
2.7 and 4 percent. I remember in my private sector days, if you had
unemployment at about 4 percent, you might not be able to hire
somebody.
So there will always be some who are unemployed because people are
changing jobs, they just graduated, they just moved and are temporarily
unemployed. There is always a segment of the population temporarily
unemployed. Almost half of our States have unemployment rates of 5
percent or less.
I mentioned there is a big difference from the language we passed in
1990. In 1990, we did do 26 weeks, but up to 26 weeks. We also had
unemployment rates that were over a full point higher.
Also, sometimes we want to ask: when are we going to pay attention to
the committees of jurisdiction? We are on an appropriations bill, yet
we have an amendment that expands entitlements. Even though we extended
current law last week, agreeing to spend an additional $7 billion plus,
colleagues say: Wait a minute, let's add another $6.5 billion on top of
that. We will just do an amendment that should come out of the Finance
Committee right now. This is the first time that people will have seen
it, and it's different than the proposals we have seen in the past, and
we will see if we cannot pass it.
It does not belong here. Obviously, my colleagues know the budget
point of order lies against this amendment. This proposal has not been
introduced as a bill and a committee hearing has not been held, that I
know of. Maybe different bills have been introduced. If it is the bill
Senator Clinton was talking about introducing, this is not the same
bill. There is a reason we should follow regular order. There is a
reason we should use the committee of jurisdiction. There is a reason
we should have bipartisan cooperation on bills such as this. I am
disappointed we are not.
In this current recession, we have spent up to $26.25 billion since
March of 2001 to help the unemployed. That is almost what we spent in
the 1990s. People say: Well, you are not helping; you do not care about
the people. That is hogwash. The proposal introduced today by Senator
Reed and Senator Durbin is not targeted. Twenty-four States have
unemployment of 5 percent or less, but they will get the same benefits
as everyone else, except the highest unemployment states get an extra 7
weeks.
Then we have the dilemma of, right now, the present requirement is a
person only has to work 20 weeks and they can receive as much as 52
weeks in unemployment compensation. That is not a bad deal, especially
when you consider 72 percent of workers in a household who are eligible
to receive these benefits have another family member who is employed.

Think of that: 52 weeks of paid unemployment compensation while in a
household where, in 72 percent of those households, there is an
employed family member.
This is a crummy way to legislate. It doesn't belong on this
appropriations bill. We need to finish this appropriations process. We
have 11 bills that were not finished last year. We have already
finished one-quarter of this present fiscal year and we haven't passed
these bills and we need to complete them. If colleagues want to do a
change on unemployment compensation, they should introduce a bill, have
it referred to an appropriate committee, and ask the chairman for a
hearing, ask the chairman for a markup. That is the way business is
supposed to be done in the Senate. It is not to try to rewrite
entitlement programs. If you can do unemployment compensation, you can
do Medicare, you can do Social Security, you can do any other bill, but
that is not following the procedure.
Senator Stevens has great expertise, but I doubt that controlling or
managing unemployment compensation is his area of expertise. That is
not what his committee does. That belongs properly in the Finance
Committee. We need to start respecting committees' jurisdictions and we
have not been doing it.
I urge my colleagues, let's not be playing games. Let's not be trying
to pass something they know won't pass and they know it will not come
out of conference even if they are successful. I don't believe they
will be successful. They should not be successful.
Mr. President, the pending amendment offered by the Senator from
Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, increases mandatory spend and, if adopted, it
would cause an increase in the deficit. Therefore I raise a point of
order against the amendment pursuant to section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68,
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, as
amended by S. Res. 304.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. NICKLES. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I renew my request to vitiate the quorum
call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the leaders set
a time for the budget waiver I am going to be suggesting in just a
second. That is part of the unanimous consent request.
Therefore, on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I move to waive
the Budget Act under the requisite rules of the Senate.
Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, and I shall object,
because I think somebody in our conference said they would wish to
consult with me so, temporarily, I object.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have some business here to conduct.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield? I have a unanimous consent
request I would like to enter before the 5 o'clock vote.

Order of Procedure

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate considers S.
121, the AMBER Alert bill, Senator Hatch be granted 5 minutes to speak.
Therefore, debate on the bill would commence at 5 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. No objection. Mr. President, I ask the record reflect I do
not waive any of my rights under the motion that the Senator from
Oklahoma offered, and I would renew my motion to waive at a subsequent
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request of the Senator
from Oklahoma is agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.
Mr. REID. I also made a request. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I
want to make sure the record is reflective that I do not waive any of
my rights on the motion to waive the Budget Act.
Mr. President, while I still have the floor, we have a few minutes
until 5 o'clock when debate on the AMBER Alert matter takes place. We
have two matters. We have the Senator from West Virginia to be heard--I
did see him here. He wanted to speak on the Ridge nomination, which is
going to come up. He wanted to get that debate out of the way.
We also have Senator Nelson here, who has been patiently waiting, who
wishes to offer an amendment on his behalf and that of Senator Inhofe.
We would need consent to set aside the pending amendment to allow him
to do that.
I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside for the
Senator from Florida to offer his amendment. He said he would need 25
or 30 minutes to speak, but he said that he could do that this
afternoon in 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 97

(Purpose: To make additional appropriations for emergency
relief activities)

[[Page S1230]]

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I call up amendment No. 97 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), for himself, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment
numbered 97.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec.__. In addition to amounts appropriated by this Act
under the heading ``Public Law 480 Title II Grants'', there
is appropriated, out of funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $600,000,000 for assistance for emergency
relief activities: Provided, That the amount appropriated
under this section shall remain available through September
30, 2004: Provided further, That the entire amount
appropriated under this section is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to address a
humanitarian crisis in the world that has not been getting the
attention its magnitude warrants. The world has focused on the buildup
of forces in the Persian Gulf region for a possible war. We focused on
a very dangerous situation in North Korea, which threatens the U.S.
interests and Asian security. We have a litany of problems plaguing the
Western Hemisphere as well, relating to narcotics trafficking, civil
war, and abject poverty.
But today I call to the Senate's attention, sub-Saharan Africa and
the starvation that is occurring in east Africa, in west Africa,
central Africa and in the southern part of Africa. The droughts in
these areas have caused a massive food shortage which will worsen over
the next few months and threatens the lives of millions of Africans. It
is our responsibility, as a nation of bounty, to demonstrate to the
world that the United States lives up to its commitments and
obligations to those in need.
In that spirit I am offering this amendment. This amendment is not
about politics. If you will recall what President Reagan once said, he
said:

A hungry child knows no politics.

He was correct. This is about people dying. This is about reaching
out and saving lives. We have an opportunity to do the right thing now,
and that is save African children from starving to death.
Congressman Frank Wolf, my good friend, has just returned from
Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that his report of his trip be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Trip Report: Ethiopia and Eritrea--December 29, 2002-January 4, 2003

Babies wailing and screeching, desperately trying to get
nourishment from their mothers' breasts.
Two- and three-year-olds so severely malnourished that they
cannot stand, much less crawl or walk, their pencil-thin legs
so frail that they could be snapped like a twig with little
or no effort.
Young boys and girls with bloated bellies. A teenager whose
legs are no thicker than my wrist.
Drinking water almost non-existent--a four-hour walk each
way just to find some. Fields scorched. Crops failed.
River beds dry as a bone. Hand-dug collecting ponds for
rain so sun-baked that the earth has cracked.
Disease. Despair.
These are some of the horrific sites I witnessed last week
in Ethiopia, which once again is facing a famine of
catastrophic proportions.
I spent a week in Ethiopia in 1984--when nearly one million
people died of starvation--including two nights in a feeding
camp. The squalid conditions of the camps and the suffering
faces of the children, mothers and elderly were haunting and
unforgettable. What I saw--and experienced--changed me
forever. I never thought I would see something like that
again. I have. Last week.
By Easter, thousands of Ethiopians could be dead from
starvation. Children living in villages just 90 miles from
the capital city, Addis Ababa, which is easily accessible by
truck, are already near death. Conditions in villages in more
remote areas of the country are significantly worse.

Dire Situation

While the government of Ethiopia is out in front of trying
to draw attention to the crisis--unlike in 1984 when the
Mengistu government tried to keep the famine secret until a
BBC camera crew broke the story--what makes this year's
crisis more horrific is that the population of Ethiopia has
increased from 45 million in 1984 to 69 million today. In
addition, HIV/AIDS is spreading throughout the country and
Ethiopia's 2\1/2\-year border was with neighboring Eritrea
has drained precious resources and led to thousands of
displaced people and families, particularly in remote areas
of the country.
With each crisis--drought, war, disease--more families
become destitute and completely dependent on others for their
welfare and survival. The repeated droughts have made more
people vulnerable to hunger and hunger-related diseases,
sharply increasing the danger of outright starvation among
groups that may have been able to survive previous crop
failures and livestock losses.
This also is a tough neighborhood, with Sudan bordering to
the west and Somalia to the east. These countries are
struggling to overcome internal turmoil of their own and
refugees from each have crossed into Ethiopia and are living
in refugee camps.
But perhaps the greatest difficulty is getting the world to
respond. The focus in capital cities around the globe is the
war on terror, Iraq and North Korea.

how could this happen?

I do not believe this situation should ever have been
allowed to develop. Does anyone really believe that the world
would turn a blind eye if this crisis were unfolding in
France or Australia? If the photographs in this report were
of Norwegian children wouldn't the world be rushing to help?
Is not the value of an Ethiopian child or Eritrean mother the
same in the eyes of God?
This disaster has been building since last fall, yet there
has been little mention of it in the Western media, let alone
any in depth reports. Without graphic photographs and video-
tape, foreign governments will not feel the pressure to act.
The situation in Ethiopia is dire and many believe if
immediate action is not taken to address the looming crisis,
the number of people who could die from starvation could
surpass those who perished during the 1984-1985 drought. In
1984, 8 million were in need of food aid. Today, more than 11
million people--just slightly less than the combined
population of Maryland and Virginia--are presently at risk
and that number is growing every day.
Last year's crops produced little or nothing, even in parts
of the country that normally provide surpluses of food. The
demand for international food aid is tremendous. I was told
there is enough food in the country to meet January's needs
and part of February's, although at reduced levels.
Incredibly, there is nothing in the pipeline to deal with
March, April, May, or the rest of the year. Even if ships
leaded with grain were to leave today, many would not make it
in time to avert disaster.
Villagers are living on about 900 calories a day. The
average American lives on 2,200 to 2,400 calories a day.
An elderly woman at a feeding station in the northern part
of the country showed me her monthly allotment of wheat: it
would have fit into a bowling ball bag.
A man working under the hot African sun with fellow
villagers to dig a massive rain collecting pond--each
carrying 50-pound bags of dirt up from the bottom of the
pit--told me he had not had a drink of water all day and
didn't know if he would eat that night. It would depend on
whether his children had food.

no water

Water--for drinking and bathing--is almost non-existent,
and what is available, is putrid. There is no medicine--and
even if there was something as simple as an aspirin there is
no water with which to wash it down. Disease is rampant.
During my trip I visited villages in both the north and
south of the country. I went to a food distribution center
and a health clinic. I talked with farmers who had already
begun to sell off their livestock and mothers who did not
know where or when their children would get their next meal.
I met with U.S. State Department officials and NGOs. I also
met with Prime Minister Meles and a number of relief
officials in his government.
The government's decision not to establish feeding camps is
a wise one. The camps only exacerbate the crisis because they
allow diseases to spread much more quickly and take people
away from their homes and albeit limited support systems. In
1984, many families traveled great distances to reach the
camps and by the time they got there were often near death.
Moreover, villagers who left for the camps and somehow
managed to survive had nothing to return to because they had
lost their homes and sold their livestock.
Fortunately, relief organizations, including U.S. AID and
the United Nations World Food Programme, have developed an
early warning system to better predict the effects of the
looming crisis and have been sounding the alarm since the
fall.
Nevertheless, they are facing an uphill battle. Donor
fatigue is a very real problem.

competing world crisis

Getting the world--and the United States, in particular--to
focus on the issue is difficult because of the war on
terrorism, the situation in Iraq and the growing crisis in
North Korea.
Since August 2002, the United States has provided
approximately 430,000 metric tons

[[Page S1231]]

of food, valued at $179 million. This amount constitutes
approximately 25 percent of the total need in the country.
The U.S. government will need to do more to avert a disaster
of biblical proportions.
Before leaving on the trip, a number of well read people in
the Washington area looked at me quizzically when I told them
I was going to Ethiopia. They all asked why? When I told them
that the country was facing another famine along the scale of
1984, they were dumbfounded.
Time is of the essence. A village can slip dramatically in
just a matter of weeks. Many of the children I saw last week
will be dead by early February and those who do somehow
miraculously survive will be severely retarded. The world
cannot afford to wait any longer.
I also visited neighboring Eritrea, where the situation is
not much better. Widespread crop failures are expected as a
result of the drought. Compounding the situation are the
lingering effects of its war with Ethiopia, which ended in
December 2000. While nearly 200,000 refugees and displaced
persons have been reintegrated into society following the
truce, almost 60,000 have been unable to return to their
homes due to the presence of land mines, unexploded
ordnance, insecurity or the simple fact that the
infrastructure near their homes has been completely
destroyed.

recommendations

Donors, including the United States, must make prompt and
significant food-aid pledges to help Ethiopia overcome its
current crisis. The food pipeline could break down as early
as next month if donors do not act immediately. There are a
number of countries, Canada and France, for instance, that
can and should do more.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must work to
ensure that the U.S. assistance is released as quickly as
possible.
When President Bush visits Africa, he should consider going
to Ethiopia. I believe he would be moved by what he sees.
The Bush Administration should make an effort to rally
public support similar to what was done during the 1984-85
famine. Perhaps the new director of faith-based initiatives
at USAID should serve as the coordinator for such an effort.
Donor support also must include water, seeds and medicine
as well as veterinary assistance.
The Ethiopian government should take its case to capitals
around the globe, sending representatives to donor nations
armed with photographs of dying children to put a face on the
growing crisis. Regrettably, if they do not ask, they will
not receive.
The Ethiopian government must contribute additional food
aid from its own resources as it did in 2000 and 2002 as a
sign of leadership and commitment to the welfare of its
people.
More must be done to develop long-term strategies to tackle
the root causes of the food shortages in Ethiopia, like
improving irrigation and developing drought-resistant crops.
The government must develop a 10- or 15-year plan designed to
help end the constant cycle of massive food shortages. A well
developed plan would go a long way toward reassuring the
international community that the country wants to end its
dependence on handouts.
The Ethiopian government also should do more to help
diversity its economy. Its largest export--coffee--is subject
to huge price fluctuations in the world market and rather
than exporting hides and leather to Italy and China--only to
come back as belts, purses and shoes--the government should
work to attract business that will make these products on
Ethiopian soil.
The government of Ethiopia also should consider a sweeping
land reform policy that would allow farmers to own their
property rather than the government owning all the country's
land, a vestige of the country's socialist days.
The media needs to more aggressively pursue this looming
crisis. It was responsible for making the world aware of the
terrible famine that was occurring in 1984 and has the
ability to let the world know about the tragedy unfolding
again.
Many of the same issues that apply to Ethiopia apply to
Eritrea. Both countries are in desperate need of assistance.
In closing, I want to thank all the people--from government
officials in both Ethiopia and Eritrea to U.S. officials and
NGOs and missionaries in both countries--who are working
around the clock to deal with this crisis. I also want to
thank U.S. Ambassador to Eritrea Donald McConnell and U.S.
Ambassador to Ethiopia Auzerlia Brazeal and their respective
staffs for all they do. They are outstanding representatives
of the U.S. government. Special thanks go to Jack Doutrich in
Eritrea and Karen Freeman, Jo Raisin and Makeda Tsegaye in
Ethiopia. Roy ``Reb'' Brownell with USAID in Washington also
deserves special recognition.
Finally, I want to thank Lt. Col. Malcom Shorter, who
accompanied me on the trip, and Dan Scandling, my chief of
staff, who took all the photographs and videotaped the trip.
Available on line at: http://www.house.gov/wolf.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. This report states that thousands of
Ethiopians could be dead of starvation by Easter. Frank Wolf writes:

More than 11 million people, just slightly less than the
combined population of Maryland and Virginia--are presently
at risk--and that number is growing every day. That number
could surpass the number that died in the 1984-85 hunger
crisis in the region.

The U.N. World Food Programme also warned of severe food shortages
this spring, estimating that between 10 million and 14 million
Ethiopians, at risk of starvation, are at risk of starvation in this
year, 2003.
Back in 1985, my wife Grace and I spent 8 days in the feeding camps
in Ethiopia. And every day we carry with us what we experienced.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, since I do not
have the time to read portions, an article that I wrote in January of
1985 about the starvation that occurred there.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Ethiopian Hunger Problem Baffles the Mind

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.--Here in this drought-stricken land
the enormity of the hunger problem baffles the mind. As I
visited the feeding centers where gentle humans are restoring
life to some of the starving, I was bewildered as to how to
solve this crisis.
The problem of famine in Africa is real. Twenty nations
have been affected. Seven are critical. Just in Ethiopia
alone, over 7 million people are threatened by starvation.
A severe drought is a major cause. The rains either did not
come or were less than is required to germinate the seeds in
the fertile soil.
Agricultural techniques are backward. There are few drilled
wells, little irrigation, almost no fertilizer used and
severe topsoil erosion. If there is to be problem-solving, it
will be long-term and it will be painful. Attitudes will have
to be changed to use modern agricultural methods. And in
Marxist countries, the collective farm reduces the farmer's
incentive to produce for himself and only aggravates the
sparse production.
There have been four major droughts in Ethiopia in the last
35 years. People have died of starvation. But this is the
worst drought and death is apparent throughout the land.
My visit to Alamata and Korem, two feeding centers 250
miles north of Addis Ababa, was shocking. The emaciated
bodies of young and old were overwhelming. One's emotions
cannot be controlled as you see the helpless trying to
survive. The huge numbers dulled my sense of hope.
Thousands have died and thousands more died in remote
villages which statistics will not record. But there is
hope--because humankind is responding--and responding well.
The Free World is responding swiftly by sharing its
abundance of food, medicine and blankets. Help from Western
nations, from the private sector and from government, is
pouring in. People are acting out of their best humanitarian
instincts.
The United States is leading the pack. There are not many
``ugly Americans'' in Africa today. We are responding from
our generosity. And America is responding mightily!
Americans are responding as a government. President Reagan
has announced his intention to provide one-half of the food
assistance needed in Africa this year--a $500 million U.S.
contribution. For Ethiopia, a Marxist state, with whom we
have strained relations, $130 million in food is already
planned. This government-supplied grain is distributed by
many private volunteer agencies, such as Catholic Relief and
World Vision, and soon some will be given directly to the
Ethiopian government relief agency. The sacks bear the words:
``Donated by the People of the United States of America.''
The private sector is also responding. For 1985, food
assistance to Ethiopia through private organizations is
estimated to be $125 million, with another $22 million spent
on Ethiopian refugees elsewhere.
The private sector from Florida responded magnificently. A
``flight of mercy'' was organized, funded, loaded, and flown
to Addis Ababa, which bespeaks the generosity of Floridians.
This mission was conceived by my wife, Grace Nelson, as a
needed response to the problems she had seen in Africa last
summer. In Mali, she held a starving child in her arms. She
has not been able to forget it. After organizing some
fundraising activities, the thought of a ``flight of mercy''
came from a discussion with the editor of the Florida Times
Union. He suggested that although people wanted to help, they
needed a concrete mission to respond to and one which could
be tracked to a successful conclusion.
This story is an American success story. A DC-8 was
chartered and loaded with 40 tons of food, medicine and
blankets, in the midst of ongoing fund drives. WCPX-TV in
Orlando collected over $80,000 and two truckloads of
blankets. World Vision, a Christian humanitarian
organization, provided the mechanism for obtaining the two
tons of medicine and thirty-eight tons of fortified food,
eleven tons of which were donated by a former Ethiopian
official in Indiana. This special mixture of oats, powdered
milk and honey, known as ATMIT, is indigenous to Ethiopia.
Another $120,000 was raised before the flight departed
Chicago on January 12th.
The plane was so long you could hardly see from one end of
the cargo bay to the other. During the 24-hour journey, our
group of

[[Page S1232]]

``food shepherds'' slept on top of the pallets of fortified
food using some of the donated blankets for warmth. It was a
good feeling to know that our mission was one of trying to
help the starving by actually taking food to them.
Our landing was the first of a stretch-DC-8 on the Addis
Ababa runway. TransAmerican Cargo Airlines and World Vision
soon had the cargo unloaded.
Success does not come easily and indeed we soon had our
problems. Food was being delayed to the feeding centers
because rebel activity in the region interrupted
transportation of supplies. When we finally were cleared for
an old DC-3 to fly us to the camps, we found they were
running dangerously low on food. But our supplies arrived
just in time.
I shall never forget the children, also starved for
affection, clinging to my hands and arms smiling in spit of
their physical deprivation. They were proof that the World
Vision feeding center was successful because only a few weeks
before they had been lifeless and lethargic. Others were in
intensive care, often with their mothers, as nutritional
supplements were administered--sometimes through a tube
because they were too weak to eat.
The staff was loving and kind . . . it showed. The nuns at
the Missionaries of Charity Compound ministered to the dying.
These sisters are sponsored by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who
had just paid a visit, greeting and blessing each person in
the camp--9,000 of them! What a lesson in love.
There are those who say, ``let them die.'' Their theories
of over-population and survival-of-the-fittest are practical,
they say. Besides ``why should we care about a foreign,
strange land?'' Fortunately, most of America does not think
that way. The goodwill, hopes and prayers of Floridians were
obvious in our specific flight of mercy. Many have responded
before, others are following.
This mission was successful because of the spirit and
character of our people. Perhaps it is best summed up in
Matthew Chapter 25: ``When you did it for the least of these,
you were doing it for me.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, from my letter, which will be
in the Record, you will see the similarity to what we have here today.
Just in Eritrea, crop failures and the lack of rainfall put about 1.5
million at risk--just less than half the population. But these
grotesque figures only speak to those in the Horn of Africa. For
example, down in Zimbabwe, 49 percent of the population is in need; in
Malawi, approximately 29 percent of the population is in need; in
Zambia, approximately 26 percent of the population; and in Lesotho,
approximately 30 percent of the population. These are just some of the
countries whose populations need food right now.
The World Food Programme estimates that a total of over 38 million
people are at risk of starvation throughout Africa this year. This
figure is almost beyond comprehension, and compels this body to provide
relief.

The toll of this famine threatens to be far worse than anything we
have seen previously for another reason. The terrible epidemic of HIV/
AIDS, which is currently ravaging the continent, destroys the immune
systems of its victims. When further weakened by malnutrition, they are
unable to fight off even the most mild illnesses. If we do not act, the
death toll will rise, and it will rise quickly.
There is also a security aspect to providing this relief. It is well-
known that the Horn of Africa has had its problems with extremism,
particularly in nearby Sudan. As such, crises in this region may pose
significant security threats as we fight the global war on terrorism.
Terrorist organizations and other extremists have frequently used food
as a political weapon in past famines. By controlling the distribution
of food, they can hold entire populations of hungry people hostage, and
thereby gain their unwitting support. We must combat these threats on
all fronts, including providing relief, and with it order, to regions
that desperately need it.
Now, allow me to explain this amendment in the context of the fiscal
year 2003 appropriations bill we are debating. Because of the Congress'
inability to pass the 2003 appropriations bills on time, food relief is
being undercut by $252 million as we operate at 2002 funding levels.
Moreover, such severe food shortages in Africa were not contemplated in
the president's 2003 request. Simply funding the president's request
will not be enough to stave off a massive starvation crisis in Sub-
Saharan Africa.
I ask that a letter from the Alliance for Food Security to President
Bush dated January 3, 2003 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Alliance for Food Security,

January 3, 2003.
Hon. George W. Bush,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. President: US charitable, agricultural and
commercial groups have come together to urge additional US
Government funding to provide assistance to 30 million
Africans suffering from severe food shortages, without
diminishing US efforts to address chronic hunger and provide
relief elsewhere. To assure that previously-planned food aid
programs and emergency relief can go forward in fiscal year
(FY) 2003, we urge you to seek full funding of the $1.2
billion appropriations for PL 480 Title II when the current
continuing appropriations bill expires. To provide the
additional commodities needed for urgent emergencies in
Ethiopia, Eritrea and southern Africa, we ask you to seek
emergency supplemental funds for the $603-778 million that
would provide half of the commodities to meet projected needs
for FY 2003.
In FY 2003, US food aid levels are alarmingly insufficient.
There are several reasons for this resource gap.
First, Congress has not yet passed the FY 2003
appropriations bill and is forcing PL 480 Title II to operate
at a level that is $252 million less than the
Administration's FY 2003 budget request. Second, even if the
Administration's FY 2003 budget request for Title II is
approved, because most commodity prices have increased, that
funding level would buy 30% fewer commodities than originally
planned. Third, severe food shortages in southern and eastern
Africa were not anticipated when the Administration prepared
its FY 2003 budget request, and these emergencies require an
additional $600-778 million above the Administration's FY
2003 budget request.
Finally, for FY 2003, the Administration initiated a policy
which precludes the purchase of commodities for food aid
using general Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) authority.
Instead, the Administration stated its intent that it would
seek appropriations to meet legitimate food aid needs.
Although the FY 2003 PL 480 Title II budget request was
increased to make up for the loss of a portion of CCC
commodities, the funding request is insufficient to meet the
needs of both ongoing programs for poor and displaced
persons, as well as people facing emergency food shortages.
Insufficient funding for ongoing Title II programs will
hurt millions of people in regions that are recovering from
war or are vulnerable to crises, such as Afghanistan, West
Africa, Bangladesh, Nicaragua, Angola, Somalia and Sudan.
Cuts in these programs could also have negative repercussions
for U.S. foreign policy and national security interests, and
could lead to future emergencies. The more subtle and
insidious effects of chronic under-nutrition must not be
overlooked. Thus, the full appropriations of $1.2 billion is
needed now for FY 2003.
Beyond the FY 2003 appropriations, another $603 to $778
million is needed to meet the historic US commitment of
providing at least half of the commodities required during a
food crisis in poor countries. This funding is needed to
provide a nutritious mix of foods to avoid starvation in
Ethiopia, Eritrea and 6 southern African countries, and to
help people rebuild their strength and take the first
steps towards recovery. People are even more vulnerable to
starvation due to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, which makes this
an extraordinary crisis and requires immediate response.
Even if the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust is used to
provide up to 500,000 MT (valued at $250 million including
delivery costs), this would only provide one-third of the
estimated emergency needs.
In conjunction with delivering adequate food supplies to
address the emergencies in Africa, charitable organizations
are committed to helping people immediately move into the
recovery phase. Food aid must be integral with investments in
agricultural production, such as seeds, fertilizer and
farming tools, and with expanded HIV/AIDS efforts. This
includes services that improve prevention, enable families to
provide nutritious foods and care for relatives living with
the disease, and ensure the nutritional, educational and
financial needs of orphans are met.
Using food aid to assist people who are impoverished so in
the future they may provide for their own nutritional needs
in the main purpose of the PL 480 Title II program. It is an
equally high calling as helping people who face immediate
famine. To diminish the one in order to care for the other is
not a choice our great country should make. In compassion and
recognition of our urgent needs in Africa while at the same
time maintaining the U.S. commitment to fund the
developmental and other relief programs of Title II in FY
2003.
Sincerely,
ACDI/VOCA.
Africare.
American Maritime Congress.
American Soybean Association.
Astaris LLC.
Bread for the World.
California Wheat Commission.
Chippewa Valley Bean Co., Inc.
Didion Milling, Inc.
Friends of World Food.
Illinois Soybean Association.

[[Page S1233]]

Adventist Development & Relief Agency International.
Agricor, Inc.
American Red Cross.
APL Limited.
Bethel Grain Company.
California Association of Wheat Growers.
CARE.
Central Bag Company.
Counterpart International.
Food for the Hungry, Inc.
Global Food & Nutrition, Inc.
International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, ILA,
AFL-CIO.
International Orthodox Christian Charities.
J.R. Short Milling Company.
Land O'Lakes.
Mercy Corps.
National Farmers Union.
North American Millers Association.
Opportunities Industrialization Centers International, Inc.
Project Concern International.
Salvation Army World Service Office.
TechnoServe.
The Manchester Company.
U.S. Dairy Export Council.
U.S. Wheat Associates.
USA Rice Federation.
World Vision.
International Relief & Development.
Jesuit Refugee Service USA.
Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development.
National Dry Bean Council.
National Potato Council.
Northwest Medical Teams.
P&O Nedlloyd Limited.
Salesian Missions.
Save the Children.
The International Rescue Committee.
Transportation Institute.
U.S. Jesuit Conference.
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council.
Washington Wheat Commission.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this letter from a coalition of
over 50 nongovernmental, humanitarian and agricultural groups seeks
between $608 and $778 million above the President's request to meet the
demands of these emergency circumstances. The $600 million my amendment
provides is based on close consultation with these organizations who
know the situation well from their work on the ground in Africa.
This amendment provides resources called for in the African Famine
Relief Act of 2003 introduced by Senator Daschle. It does not
specifically designate the funds for sub-Saharan Africa, to be
consistent with the way we have traditionally appropriated P.L. 480
Title II funds. But I trust that these funds will be used for the
purpose for which they are intended--staving off the imminent threat of
mass starvation in Africa.
It is my hope that this amendment will be acceptable to my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle, and to the administration, and I will
explain why. The designation of these funds as ``emergency funds'' is
important. That means the funds do not have to be spent unless the
President likewise designates this crisis as an emergency. If he does
not designate the situation in Africa as an emergency, and most would
agree it is an emergency, but the President would not be required to
provide these funds and it would not affect the topline.
Over the weekend, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios took an
important first step to provide some relief to Ethiopia, by agreeing to
send 262 metric tons of food there at a cost of about $127 million. I
commend Mr. Natsios and Secretary Powell for their attention to this
issue, but we need to do more. It is my hope that by speaking about
this issue now, increased attention to the plight of the Africans will
spur American and international action. The U.S. Senate should show
leadership on this without delay. I thank the Chair, and ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to underscore the importance of
the issue that Senator Nelson has raised today. Some 38 million
Africans are threatened with starvation in the coming months. In a six-
country region encompassing Zambia and Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique,
Swaziland and Lesotho, 25 percent of the population is urgently in need
of assistance. This food crisis is striking a tremendously vulnerable
population that has already been devastated by HIV/AIDS, compounding
the difficulty of African families' struggle for survival. In the Horn
of Africa, almost half of Eritrea's population is at risk, and Ethiopia
stands on the brink of a crisis rivaling that of the mid-1980s.
I have served on the Subcommittee on African Affairs since I came to
the Senate, and spent over half of my tenure here as either the ranking
minority member or chairman of that subcommittee. I have watched this
crisis unfold over the past year with horror. The United States and the
international community must act now to address this crisis; delay will
mean death for too many innocent families. But we must also work in the
months and years ahead to address some of the underlying causes of food
insecurity in Africa, so that we can reduce communities' vulnerability
to natural factors affecting harvests. Certainly we need to join with
the many Africans who want to ensure that misguided policies and
decisions are examined, discarded, and not repeated--from the
tremendously destructive policies pursued by the Zimbabwean government,
to corrupt practices affecting food stocks in Malawi, to the impact of
the government's national service program on the agricultural sector in
Eritrea. And certainly we need to ensure that assistance is distributed
responsibly, fairly, and efficiently. But we also need to help African
societies reinvigorate their agricultural sectors, by working to get
small farmers the technical assistance, infrastructure, and opportunity
that they need to succeed.
In July of last year, I asked the GAO to examine some of the causes
contributing to the southern African food crisis, and to evaluate the
efficacy of our response, so that we can improve our performance and
prevent crises in the future. Unfortunately, the World Food Program has
warned that early indicators suggest drought may continue to plague the
region in the year ahead. I am looking forward to the GAO's final
report, and hope that it can point the way toward proactive steps that
we can take to work with our African partners on this issue.
As another step in this broader, long-term effort, this week I am
introducing a resolution calling on USAID to give adequate attention to
land tenure issues as the agency pursues efforts to bolster
agricultural development and fight hunger, and I hope to work with my
colleagues on other initiatives aimed at addressing underlying causes
of chronic food insecurity in the months ahead. Too often, we think of
Africa only as a troubled continent, full of flood and famine, war and
deadly disease. But I have traveled widely on the continent, and I have
met with energized and committed Africans from government officials to
businessmen to community activists. There is no lack of good partners
on the continent, and there is no absence of promise or potential. Our
commitment to get serious about these issues now can lead to meaningful
success, improving the lives of millions of Africans and bolstering
food security in the region.
These long-term initiatives deserve Congress's support, but we will
be working with profoundly weakened partners in our every effort--be it
counterterrorism initiatives or programs aimed at increasing trade and
investment--if we do not address this immediate emergency. Senator
Nelson is right to sound the alarm about this crisis now, while we have
an opportunity to act and to help those people currently at risk. To
help now is humane, it is right, and it is in our interest.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reed
amendment on unemployment insurance which is before the body be
recalled, and I move to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act
for the consideration of the Reed amendment. Senator Nickles also
raised a point of order. I just want to move to waive it. Such time as
we vote on it will be the decision of the body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking for regular order on
that amendment?
Mr. REID. I asked that the Reed amendment be recalled. I ask for
regular order and renew my unanimous consent request to waive the
relevant section of the Budget Act for consideration of the Reed
amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S1234]]

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it was clearly my intention to
regain the floor so I could yield to my friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that we return to the Nelson
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Florida for yielding.
Let me first of all say, to clarify the understanding that I have in
listening to his presentation, that his request would not necessarily
be binding unless the President were to include this as something which
he would interpret as an emergency; that is, the funding that is
requested by the Senator. Is that correct?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. If the President did
not designate the situation in Africa as an emergency, the President
would not be required to provide these funds and it would not affect
the top line.
Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield further, I can't quite see the
Senator's map of the continent. My understanding is that most of that
is in sub-Saharan Africa. Is that correct?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. It involves three
countries in east Africa, six countries in west Africa, three countries
in central Africa, and about seven countries in southern Africa.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further, let me
just make a comment. I perhaps have had maybe even a conflict of
interest in this case. But that conflict has made me very sensitive to
the plight they have in sub-Saharan Africa. As the Senator from Florida
knows, I have been there many times. I am very familiar with that whole
region. But in the case of Ethiopia, which seems to be one of the first
areas the Senator is addressing, a drought is taking place there right
now. In fact, I have and I will hold up a picture of a little girl we
found during that drought. She was abandoned. She was 3 days old. We
were able to get her back into good health. I am very proud to say that
this little girl--Zegita Marie Rapert--happens to be my granddaughter.
She is now officially adopted.
By the way, in case you are wondering why she is wearing a crown,
that was her first birthday. She has three older brothers ages 4, 5,
and 6. It is a pretty typical family. Anyone from Ethiopia is
considered royalty: Queen of Sheba--anyone from Ethiopia is royalty. So
they gave her this crown for her first birthday.
I would suggest that there is no area that is having a more difficult
time right now. I know there is a lot of competition for funds. But I
think the way the junior Senator from Florida has structured this
amendment, that would allow the administration to make some of these
determinations and some of these priorities.

I strongly support the idea of giving some aid to that area because
of the drought that has been unprecedented for about 12 years.
Hopefully, this will happen, and it will become a reality for these
people.
We do a lot of talking around here about poverty; we do a lot of
talking about problems; but until you see some of the poverty and some
of the effects of the drought that has taken place right now in the
sub-Saharan, Africa, it is really one that we don't understand.
I yield the floor.

____________________