[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1413-1478]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 1414]]

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 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

[[Page 1415]]

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.
       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

[[Page 1416]]

     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 1417]]

  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

[[Page 1418]]

appropriations process, but these rules appear egregious to me.
  It's time that we had the National Academy of Sciences review the 
situation, since the agency and the administration do not respond to 
Congress or the public. I hope that the Academy can give us a quick and 
impartial opinion on the impacts of these rules on public health and 
the environment. To give them time to do that, the amendment defers the 
effective date of the rules for about six months.
  Mr. President, this administration has a disturbing anti-environment 
agenda. These NSR changes are just the tip of the iceberg. This group 
wants to deregulate without considering the public health and 
environmental effects. That's wrong.
  There is no good reason to increase air pollution. Science tells us 
that time and time again. We have the technology to constantly improve 
our emission performance. This administration wants to take the whole 
country backward instead of forward.
  I urge Senators to support the amendment.

[[Page 1419]]





[[Page 1420]]



[[Page 1421]]



[[Page 1422]]



[[Page 1423]]



[[Page 1424]]



[[Page 1425]]



[[Page 1426]]



[[Page 1427]]



[[Page 1428]]



[[Page 1429]]



[[Page 1430]]



[[Page 1431]]



[[Page 1432]]



[[Page 1433]]



[[Page 1434]]



[[Page 1435]]



[[Page 1436]]

  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.

[[Page 1437]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 1438]]

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 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

[[Page 1439]]

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 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.

[[Page 1440]]

     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.
       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

[[Page 1441]]

known as IDEA. We wrote the legislation to ensure that children with 
disabilities receive the special education and related services they 
need and deserve. This is expensive.
  We also recognized, however, that educating children with 
disabilities would be very costly, and therefore promised that the 
Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the excess cost of educating 
children with disabilities.
  At that time, nearly half of all disabled children, approximately 2 
million children, were not receiving a public education. They were not 
even in school. Another 2 million children were placed in segregated, 
inadequate classrooms. It was brutal.
  Today, IDEA serves approximately 6 million disabled children. IDEA 
has been very successful in providing the basic constitutional right of 
an education to our children with disabilities: dropout rates have 
decreased, graduation rates have increased, and the percentage of 
college freshmen with a disability has almost tripled.
  IDEA has helped individuals with disabilities become independent, 
wage-earning, tax-paying contributors to this Nation.
  The problem, however, is that we have not kept our promise of helping 
the States pay for the costs of educating children with disabilities. 
Although Congress has increased IDEA funding in recent years, it has 
woefully failed to meet its obligation to fully fund IDEA. Until we do 
that, we will not have done what we promised.
  Rather than contributing the 40 percent as promised, currently, we 
only pay about 17 percent.
  I would like to recognize Senators Harkin and Hagel, and, of course 
Senator Dodd, for their unyielding commitment to our children and to 
our schools, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to 
fully fund IDEA.
  The underlying appropriations bill only increases IDEA funding by $1 
billion. At that rate, we're on course to fully fund IDEA in the year 
2035. I know that the children of Vermont, and the children across this 
country, cannot wait another 32 years.
  And yet, as we continue to underfund IDEA, the costs associated with 
educating children with disabilities continue to rise and absorb 
increasingly larger portions of school districts' budgets.
  For example, in my State of Vermont, the special education costs have 
increased by 150 percent over the past 10 years, and the Federal 
underfunding leads to the State and local districts to spend 
approximately $20 million more from local sources than if Federal 
funding were provided at the maximum level. I know that these problems 
are not unique to Vermont; but rather, they are shared by States and 
school districts across the country.
  And now State governments are battling the worst fiscal conditions 
since World War II. According to the National Governors Association, 
budget shortfalls will be as high as $50 billion this year and $60 to 
$70 billion next year. Accordingly, State education budgets throughout 
the country are facing severe cuts, and schools must take drastic 
measures just to make ends meet, no less meet the burdensome mandates 
of the No Child Left Behind law.
  This amendment represents a significant step forward providing some 
relief to our schools, and I emphasize the word ``some.'' We must 
recognize that we cannot provide all of our children with the 
opportunity to achieve unless we support our children with adequate 
resources. We must provide our schools with those desperately needed 
resources and perhaps then we can ensure that, indeed, not one of our 
children is left behind. The President has made that promise, but I see 
nothing in the budget or anywhere else that indicates an attempt to 
bear that cost our States have shouldered for so long. This amendment 
brings us that little bit closer to our obligation to America's 
children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote yes.
  I yield the floor.
  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.

[[Page 1442]]

  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, Sena-
tor Clinton, Senator Dodd, Sena-
tor Kerry, Senator Levin, Sena-
tor Corzine, Senator Leahy, and Sena-
tor 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.
  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.

[[Page 1443]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 1444]]

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. 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 to 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 priced 
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 nation 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

[[Page 1445]]

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.
  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 an 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 
     general'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

[[Page 1446]]

     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.''

  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.

[[Page 1447]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 1448]]

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 $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.

[[Page 1449]]


  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 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.

[[Page 1450]]

  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's 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 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

[[Page 1451]]

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 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.

[[Page 1452]]


  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, 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

[[Page 1453]]

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 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

[[Page 1454]]

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.
  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

[[Page 1455]]

     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 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

[[Page 1456]]

       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 unnecessarily 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.
       The NSR program, as presently constituted, is a severe 
     impediment to increasing domestic energy supply. Electric 
     generating plants cannot make even minor changes 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 long 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

[[Page 1457]]

     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.
  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.

[[Page 1458]]

     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) 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

[[Page 1459]]

     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 aisle 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 
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

[[Page 1460]]

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. 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.

[[Page 1461]]

  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 States has created jobs, 
without exception, except the current President Bush. In fact, he has 
done so poorly in

[[Page 1462]]

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

[[Page 1463]]

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.
  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

[[Page 1464]]

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.
  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?

[[Page 1465]]


  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.
  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

[[Page 1466]]

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, 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.

[[Page 1467]]

  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 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:

[[Page 1468]]

                                                  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:

       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

[[Page 1469]]

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 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

[[Page 1470]]

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 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.

[[Page 1471]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 1472]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 1473]]

  Mr. President, the pending amendment offered by the Senator from 
Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, increases mandatory spending 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)

  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.

[[Page 1474]]




                             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 war 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 
     loaded 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 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.

[[Page 1475]]

       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 ``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

[[Page 1476]]

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.
       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

[[Page 1477]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 1478]]

  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.

                          ____________________