Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleagues for the expeditious approval of former Washington Gov. Gary Locke as the 36th Secretary of Commerce.

I have known Gary Locke for more than 20 years and I can say to my colleagues you did the right thing tonight by approving him for this job.

He has helped our State with broadband service delivery to rural communities. Under his leadership, Washington State used E-rate funds to help develop a K-20 network, a high-speed, high-capacity network linking K-12 schools and universities across the State of Washington.

He has been involved with both public and private sector trade missions in helping to promote U.S. products abroad. At the International Trade Administration within Commerce, he will put that experience to good use. Part of that agency's mission is to provide for advocacy for American companies abroad, and it can mean the difference between whether major foreign sales opportunities go to U.S. companies or to foreign competitors.

At NOAA, which is over half the Department of Commerce's budget, Governor Locke's prior experience with the complexities of Puget Sound, endangered salmon species, and the hazards of oil spills, will all be invaluable. As Governor, Gary Locke dealt with many of our most trying fishing issues and was in charge of appointing members to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

Fisheries in the North Pacific have been recognized by many organizations, including the U.S. Oceans Commission and the Pew Oceans Commission, as some of the best managed fisheries in the world.

In addition to that effort, Governor Locke has dealt with the complexities of endangered salmon species and getting the first locally developed regional salmon recovery plan for Washington State. I know that this expertise will be put to good use at NOAA.

Many of my colleagues understand that there are challenges at the Department of Commerce, including management challenges--from the set- top box program for the digital television transition, to getting the NOAA satellite program back on track, to wisely investing the $4.7 billion of broadband grants as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

I know Governor Locke, who has never shied away from management challenges, will put his expertise to good work in making sure these programs are implemented effectively.

He worked with Democrats and Republicans in our State after the tech bubble crisis to come up with a budget and spending reduction proposals that were certainly unpopular at the time, but what the State budget needed. I know he will continue in the same bipartisan fashion as Secretary of Commerce.

I believe Governor Locke will help round out the President's economic team. He is someone who understands the challenges many Americans face as we try to stabilize our economy. Governor Locke was born and raised in public housing. He combined an intense work ethic with part-time jobs and financial aid, and graduated from Yale University and received a subsequent law degree from Boston University.

He became the first Chinese American elected Governor in the United States when he was elected to be Governor of the State of Washington.

He is a testament to the American dream.

So I hope that as we have approved this nomination, he will get started immediately on helping our economy return to robust growth and use the great resourcefulness he has demonstrated as Governor of Washington State. He will make sure the Commerce Department plays a key role in getting our economy moving.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the introduction of the Hoh Indian Tribe Safe Homelands Act, introduced by Senator Murray and myself on Friday, February 13, 2009. This piece of legislation is needed so that the Hoh tribe can move their village out of harm's way.

The Hoh tribe occupies a 1-square-mile reservation on the banks of the Hoh River where it meets the Pacific Ocean in Washington State. Due to repeated storms, heavy rain, and the movement of the Hoh River, the tribe's village is threatened with flooding every winter. Ninety percent of the reservation now sits in a flood plain, and 100 percent of the land they reside on sits within a tsunami zone.

Many of the buildings located on the existing reservation are permanently sandbagged due to the threat of flooding, and several houses have been lost to the river over the last 10 years. The tribe's wastewater treatment plant has also been threatened by flooding on multiple occasions.

This legislation will allow the tribe to move out of danger by transferring a 26 acre piece of Federal land to the tribe. This parcel of land is needed to connect the existing reservation with land the tribe has obtained on their own. Once the old village is collected with the land the tribe already owns they can move their entire village out of harm's way.

Transferring ownership of a piece of Federal land should never be taken

lightly, and this case is no exception. However, the Hoh tribe is in a desperate situation. By transferring this small piece of land to the tribe and taking it into trust we can help the tribe remove themselves from a dangerous situation.

Mr. President, the Senate tonight will send to the President the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I think this legislation is a first step not only in turning the economy around in the short term, but also in laying the groundwork for rebuilding and growing it over the near and longterm. But we need to do much more.

I think it is important to lay down a marker right now that our job on rebuilding this economy is not finished. We must continue to focus on making the right kind of investments, ones that help us realize our maximum economic potential and ones that update our economic engines for the 21st century and beyond. To do this, we must make a commitment to invest in our capacity to innovate and in our capability to commercialize new technologies and discoveries.

I have worked with many of my colleagues, especially Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch, on bolstering the incentives that support our country's research capabilities.

For example, I have long been a supporter of making the R&D tax credit permanent. I continue to believe that we have done ourselves a tragic disservice by failing to provide long-term predictability to the very businesses that are driving economic growth and are at the frontline of every innovation and discovery that moves us forward as a society.

We all know that if the high-wage jobs of the future are going to be created in the United States we have to make the necessary investments in intellectual infrastructure to keep American business competitive in the global economy.

Investing in America's intellectual infrastructure is key to economic growth and instrumental in spurring entrepreneurial innovation and job creation. It is just as important as our commitment to physical infrastructure.

Yet, thousands of companies employing U.S. workers in cutting-edge, research-oriented industries such as biotechnology, high technology, and clean technology are suffering from the same fate that has affected our U.S. manufacturing companies. Without credit markets properly functioning and with little to no investment from the equity markets or venture capital, this next generation of job creators will shrink and become less competitive in the global economy if we do not take action.

Economic analysis tells us that because R&D doesn't produce fast cash it is often a target when times are rough and companies need to reduce costs. It is in our collective interest as a country to help companies take a different path during this economic downturn and find ways to help innovative companies sustain and increase their R&D spending now so they are better positioned to succeed when economic conditions turn around.

I will ask to have printed in the Record a letter from 11 technology- oriented, R&D-dependent trade associations such as the Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, AdvaMed, and others--that represent companies employing hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers reliant on our commitment to intellectual infrastructure.

This letter was recently sent to all members of the Senate Finance Committee and outlines an approach that would allow small businesses to accelerate their use of accumulated net operating losses, NOLs, if they invest in U.S.-based research and development.

Expanding incentives to encourage more R&D activity in the United States will be essential to the American innovators who are developing the technologies of the future.

We must commit to considering new and thoughtful legislative approaches like this one that can truly move us forward in creating the high-quality, high-paying jobs of this century, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Five minutes equally.

I call up amendment No. 274, as modified.

I ask that the amendment be further modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Bingaman, for helping us work on this modified language-- Senator Bingaman, particularly--related to plug-in vehicles. I thank my colleagues who have worked on additional amendments as part of this qualification of the ITC manufacturing credit; conservation bonds in the underlying bill that I know my colleague, Senator Feingold, has worked on; Senators Bingaman and Carper on a technical fix to carbon sequestration; I know the Senators in the Northeast and the Northwest have worked on provisions of existing modifications to the wood stove amendment we helped in the 2007 bill; and my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Feinstein, Bingaman, and Kerry on updates for the enhancement effectiveness of home energy efficiency in the Tax Code.

I think all of these things make for a very important amendment for the stimulus package because it is about immediate stimulus and it is about job creation, both in the near term and the opportunity for tremendous job creation in the long term.

The underlying amendment deals with the issue of creating and expensing for those who invest in plug-in battery technology or components. The United States currently is the leader in research and development of battery technology. Unfortunately, the number of manufacturing facilities in the United States that take advantage of that R&D is zero--zero opportunities currently in manufacturing in the United States.

What we know around the globe is that countries, such as China, have over 250,000 people working on battery technology and over 150 partners. We know Europeans and others are quick to work on this technology. Why? Because many people believe we are going to make this transformation off fossil fuel and on to cars powered by our electricity grid. So we know we are moving in that direction, but we are not doing anything to provide incentives so that manufacturing can take place in the United States.

I am not talking necessarily about domestic manufacturers. I am not saying we are not talking about them. We are talking about making sure--whether it is Toyota, whether it is Tesla Motors, or someone not even on the horizon today, or what is happening in Detroit--that the United States does not continue to import their battery technology but starts manufacturing in the United States.

This is a great opportunity for us in manufacturing to complement the ITC manufacturing credit that went to

other renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, to bring some of that manufacturing into the United States. I think that provision is tremendously important, but I say to my colleagues on the Senate floor, I cannot think of a bigger opportunity for job creation in the future than helping to make this transition off fossil fuel and on to the grid. If we fail to make this step now, we will be as dependent on foreign battery technology as we are on Mideast fossil fuel today. We don't want to make that mistake.

We know in the small business provisions of this bill, we are giving expensing opportunities so that with the depreciation rate takedown, people will make more investments now. That is the same thing we are doing here, making investments in plug-in technology to stimulate job creation around this technology and help us with millions of long-term jobs and an opportunity to get off fossil fuel and deliver for our constituents a cheaper source of transportation in the future.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, in response to my colleague, the notion of plug-in technology was discussed in the Finance Committee. We decided to offer this amendment on the floor instead. We know the economic opportunity we are going to lose by not making this investment is great.

What is so unique about this is that it is stimulative now, it is job creation, and it, as the President says, puts us in a position in a key technology area in which we know the United States wants to be competitive. I believe it is a very winning proposition for the stimulus bill.

Madam President, I thank my cosponsors of this amendment, Senator Hatch, Senator Bingaman, Senator Stabenow, Senator Alexander, Senator Snowe, Senator Kerry, Senator Carper, and Senator Schumer. What this amendment does is make an investment in not only stimulative activity for construction, engineering, and manufacturing jobs now, but it also makes an investment in our future in electric plug-in vehicles by making sure we create the right incentives for investment in that kind of manufacturing.

The United States right now leads in R&D on battery technology and components, but we have zero manufacturing--zero. The Chinese have 250,000 people in manufacturing and battery technology and over 150 partners. If we are going to create economic opportunity now, this is the amendment to do that and create jobs for the future in getting us off of our foreign dependence on oil.

Madam President, the amendment is paid for, but pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I am on the floor to speak about the Cantwell-Hatch amendment. I would call it up, but I know there will be objection on the other side. I want to say that we will be asking for a vote on this amendment at some point in time. So for my colleagues to know, we will be demanding a vote on this issue.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Levin, Brown, Alexander, Carper, Menendez, and Udall of Colorado as cosponsors of amendment No. 274.

Madam President, we are here today to find ways to inject capital, confidence, and construction into our economy. That is why I have worked so hard collaborating with Senator Hatch and Senator Stabenow who is now on the floor now and I think Senator Hatch may come at some point later today--and with Senator Kerry and many stakeholders across the country to develop what is an economic recovery and reinvestment opportunity that leverages the incredible potential of plug-in electric vehicles.

I would like to thank my colleague from Utah for his willingness to work across the aisle on what we think is one of the biggest economic opportunities for our country in manufacturing.

If this stimulus bill is about figuring out ways to create tens of thousands of jobs and economic growth in the short term, and millions of sustainable jobs in the long term, then plug-ins are a big winner for the United States economy.

According to a recent report by McKinsey & Company, the opportunity for electric vehicles could be a very attractive U.S. investment. They note that the total market for electric vehicles in North America, Europe, and Asia could be as much as $120 billion by 2030.

I know President Obama recognizes this opportunity, that is not a surprise since he sat down with Senator Hatch and I in 2007 to actually write the original plug-in vehicle incentives bill.

The President understands that plug-in vehicles are a game-changing technology. They can change the way we consume energy for our transportation needs. Instead of paying the exorbitant prices we were paying for gasoline, over four dollars a gallon just last summer, plug- in vehicles will allow us to transform the electricity grid into a fuel source and be paying about a dollar a gallon for our fuel costs. That alone is probably the most effective way to help our Nation get off our overdependence on foreign oil.

That is why President Obama, in his goals for his administration, has said he wants to put 1 million plug-in electric cars on the road by 2015. This amendment helps make that a reality.

Within a 3-year stimulus window, our amendment would allow people manufacturing plug-ins or their component technologies, such as batteries, to expense that capital investment. What we are doing is allowing that taxpayer to cover its cost, not by depreciating it over a long period of time, but rather to make its investment work faster in a short period of time. In other words battery technology and components become a more attractive investment in the United States.

Our provision is very similar to what we are doing in the underlying bill with small business equipment and expensing. We are trying to say those investments will help create economic opportunity and stimulus right in the United States for small business. Well, here is a large- scale opportunity as it relates to battery technology and components and we need to grab it before our international competitors do.

As President Obama said of the stimulus bill:

That's why this is not just a short-term program to boost

employment. It's one that will invest in our most important

priorities like energy and education, health care and a new

infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and

competitive in the 21st century.

I could not agree with the President more, as I look at my State, the priorities of my constituents, to make sure we are creating stimulative activity, but we are also looking to those areas of our long-term future where our country can benefit the most.

Manufacturing battery technology and components is game-changing technology. If we can create that kind of opportunity here at home, it will create tens of thousands of construction jobs, engineering jobs, manufacturing jobs, and not only in the near term, but lead to millions of jobs in the future. This is the type of investment we need to be putting in a stimulus package.

Now, I know my colleague from Michigan is on the floor and that she is very interested in making sure the battery technology gets built in the United States.

Ford, for example, announced that the cells for the battery system in its first series of plug-in hybrid production vehicles are going to be manufactured in Nersac. Now, Nersac is not some upper Midwest town. It is a city in France. I think they being manufactured in Nersac highlights the fact that if we do not act, our competitors will.

In fact, if we look at this issue, in the United States we are already pretty far behind. The United States does lead in the research and development of lithium-ion battery technology over countries such as China, Korea, and Japan, but they are the countries that are actually commercializing and producing the product using this technology.

In fact, China has over 120 companies involved in the production of lithium-ion battery technology, and their battery manufacturing industry supports over 250,000 jobs already in this area.

We, in the United States, have no comparable lithium-ion facility in our country--none. U.S. auto executives have taken a look at this situation and have said without homegrown suppliers here in the United States, the United States could become as dependent on Asian-made batteries as we currently are on Middle East oil. Now, if we are doing the R&D, why aren't we also advancing the opportunity to be a player in manufacturing?

It is not only batteries. Asia has the engineers and manufacturing expertise and capacity to make many of these component parts. In fact, South Korea is a great example of seizing on this opportunity. A few weeks ago, their Prime Minister announced that South Korea will invest $38 billion over the next 4 years on environmental projects related to energy and the economy to create a million jobs.

Now, we think of $38 billion compared to the package we have on the floor today. But $38 billion--for a country whose GDP is one-tenth the size of ours--that would be like the United States putting $400 billion to match South Korea's downpayment on a clean energy future.

Yes, I will.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Michigan, and I thank her for her leadership on this issue as well, because she has been vocal in saying the United States needs to create manufacturing incentives in the plug-in area and to lead the future of the automobile industry here in the United States. So I thank her for her question. She is absolutely right.

The United States has fallen behind. We have no battery production facilities in the United States. So we can pat ourselves on the back all we want about how we are leading in R&D in battery technology, but that is not translating into manufacturing leadership and homegrown jobs. The time has come when Americans and people around the globe believe we have to get off of fossil fuel and that the electricity grid holds great promise. The advent of these new battery technologies is allowing consumers to go an average of 100 miles per gallon. As my colleague mentioned, Europeans are already boost to their economies by promoting that kind of manufacturing. And I want to emphasize that our amendment does not say which companies would produce this battery technology. We are simply saying we should have some of this manufacturing in the United States.

Yes.

I think the electrification of automobiles as an energy source is gaining a lot of attention. There is a growing understanding that building a smart grid and allowing plug-ins to fill up when electricity prices are cheapest and when there is a lot of unused electricity capacity, turning our cars into additional storage capacity makes a lot of sense. People believe we could create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the near future and that we would be able to benefit from that as a basis of an infrastructure.

I look at China and think of the 250,000 jobs they have already created just in battery manufacturing. And that 120 companies are focusing just on manufacturing lithium-ion batteries. They have already created an economic opportunity, an edge for Asia in this marketplace that will continue to sustain them for the future in the automobile manufacturing industry.

We are at a totally new day, where we should pause and reassess all new opportunities to strengthen our country, and yet we are not capitalizing on the economic opportunity that is going to fundamentally reshape automobile transportation for the better.

I thank my colleague from Michigan for pointing those facts out and raising those questions because, again, she has been steadfast in this and understands this is about a manufacturing opportunity for the future of the United States as a manufacturing base. Whether those are foreign competitors, whether those are new domestic companies that have never been on the radar screen, whether they are the domestic manufacturers that are working hard to make the transition to this new opportunity, this amendment would address all of those.

In conclusion, today the United States is home to about 35,000 less factories than in the year 2000. In that short period of time we have lost around 4 million manufacturing jobs. Clean energy technologies, and particularly electric vehicle manufacturing, is a keystone strategic opportunity that could help change that around. That is why I am offering this amendment with my colleague, Senator Hatch, and others, because it can be effective stimulus today, but pay long-term dividends for the future of the U.S. economy.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in congratulating the new Member from Delaware just sworn in this morning and wish him well in his tenure here in the Senate. I look forward to working with him as we move forward on an important stimulus bill.

Everyone knows our economy is in tough shape, and that includes the folks in my home State of Washington where we have seen too many housing foreclosures and too many jobs cuts. That is why it is very important, as we start the discussion on the stimulus next week, that we get our priorities right, that find a way to inject capital and confidence and construction back into our economy.

Although we must act urgently, I believe we must also take care to get things right in the stimulus package and take the time necessary to make sure we are getting it right. Getting it right means maintaining a laser focus on job-creation activities in the short term and over the next few decades. This should be our top priority when putting together the stimulus package and making sure we are providing businesses with the certainty they need in the Tax Code to make investments now. That is why I believe now is the time to put all of the good ideas on the table. I was so happy to hear President-elect Obama stating a willingness to embrace any good ideas Members or America had for this critical stimulus package.

Well, to me, there is no better idea or opportunity than ensuring this stimulus provides a bold and definitive step toward a clean energy future. Clean energy will create millions of family-supporting jobs that cannot be outsourced and can provide a secure foundation for a very prosperous future for the United States.

Investing in clean energy also reduces a lot of risk that is in the marketplace right now. Whether it be the billions of dollars we spend overseas on foreign energy, or the fuel price volatility we saw last year, or the fear of supply shock that comes on a regular basis. And obviously there is uncertainty about global warming and the crisis it might lead to here and across the world.

South Korea understands this. Last Tuesday, the country's Prime Minister announced that South Korea would invest $38 billion over the next 5 years on environmental projects to stimulate the economy and create nearly 1 million jobs. Now, $38 billion may not sound like a lot here in the United States given some of the numbers people have been throwing around lately, but $38 billion for a country with a GDP less than one-tenth of our size--that would be like the United States putting up $400 billion just to match the downpayment South Korea is investing in its clean energy future.

South Korea understands that a nation that manages to win the international race to develop clean energy technologies and industries will have a leg up in determining the energy platform and all of the other solutions that will follow. South Korea knows this because it has already been a leader in lithium-ion battery technology made for cell phones and for laptops, and now they are utilizing that knowledge base to come up with lithium-ion battery solutions for cars.

Early movers will have the edge in the largest new industry of the 21st century--clean energy. The question is, Are we going to put up the resources to make sure the United States has that first-mover advantage? Well, I would say that the Government lately has spent or put at risk an incredible amount of tax dollars--or I should say future tax dollars. In the last 16 weeks or so, some people have estimated that number as high as $10 trillion. If you think about it, how do you add up $10 trillion? Well, about $2 trillion in FDIC assurances, about $1.75 trillion in Federal Reserve commercial paper purchases, about $900 billion in term auction facility lending, about $600 billion to insure money market funds, about $600 billion to cover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, about $550 billion for discount Federal Reserve loans, about $500 billion to insure FDIC deposits, about $300 billion for FHA mortgage relief, about $250 billion for CitiGroup debt, about $225 billion for security loan facility lending, about $200 billion for continued debt, about $112 billion for AIG, and a few more items that are not only in the billions of dollars.

So while I can quibble about how some of this money was spent, I do believe the Government should take bold action. I think there are many things agencies should be doing to help our economy. But my point is, in light of those obligations on future taxpayers and the amount of money we are spending, spending just $100 billion to make our Nation's energy system cleaner and

more diverse and more distributed is a no-brainer.

In my opinion, stimulus, such as clean energy investment, should get a gold star. If we are looking for avenues to create jobs and secure our future, there is no better stimulus than clean energy. A recent study from the University of Massachusetts shows that a $100 billion investment in this area would create 2 million jobs in the next two years--2 million jobs. That rate of jobs generated per dollar investment is far higher than other types of infrastructure investment. That is to say, when you are looking at stimulative activity and return on investment, the clean energy infrastructure does better than most types of other infrastructure investment.

So I come to the floor today to discuss four ideas that I believe are critically important for job creation and should be part of a stimulus package when we start to put pen to paper and actually see some of these ideas before our committees next week.

First, many of my colleagues have talked about the incredible promise of plug-in electric vehicles. But substituting electricity for gasoline and diesel fuel, plug-ins can reduce political and economic exposure to oil markets and spur a broad range of economic activity. If this stimulus bill is about figuring out ways to create jobs and economic growth in both the short term and sustainable jobs in the long term, then plug-ins are a big winner.

For consumers, charging up a plug-in hybrid at our current national average electricity rates would cost on average the equivalent of $1 per gallon. Now, imagine that compared to what many people have been paying over the last year. Moreover, our current electricity grid could fuel about 70 percent of the passenger vehicles we are driving in America today. So fully utilizing the grid in this way could displace about 6.5 million barrels of oil, that is the equivalent of about 50 percent of our imported oil. That translates into hundreds of billions of dollars staying right here at home, helping our economy instead of OPEC's.

Now, how do we get there? Before we can take advantage of this opportunity, we need to seize the opportunity in the United States to build better batteries for cars. Battery technology is the principal factor limiting the potential of the electric plug-in vehicle to displace gasoline-powered vehicles. But for battery-powered vehicles to perform comparable to gasoline, batteries must become lighter, more energy dense, and recharge more quickly.

While the United States continues to lead in the research and development of lithium-ion technology batteries, it is countries such as China and Korea and Japan that are the ones that are commercializing and producing this technology.

China has over 120 companies involved in the production of lithium- ion battery technology, and their battery manufacturing industry today supports over 250,000 jobs. We have no comparable lithium-ion battery facility in the United States.

U.S. auto executives have warned that without home-grown suppliers, this country could become as dependent on Asian-made battery technology as it is today on Middle East oil. So I think now is not the time to be timid. If we do not push our Nation into making sure we lead this transformation into changing the world's transportation system, other nations will take the lead in that transition.

It reminds me of a U.S. company, Intel, that led the development of the microprocessor chip. While it is a global company today, it continues to have its latest and greatest technology developed in the United States.

About 2 years ago, Senator Hatch, President-elect Obama, and I sat down with automakers, battery manufacturers, and utilities to figure out how to jump-start this development in the domestic production of plug-in electric vehicles.

The result was a multitiered tax incentive strategy designed to accelerate the domestic development, manufacturing, and sale of a full range of plug-in electric drive vehicles. The good news is our proposal received a 93-to-2 vote in the Senate and now consumers can access tax credits of up to $7,500 for the first 250,000 plug-in made and sold in the U.S. I do believe that incentive for consumers is a vital first step to bringing this game-changing technology to the marketplace.

But we also have to make sure the U.S. also maintains global market leadership in plug-in manufacturing components. To do that, we need to make sure we are incentivizing and creating a domestic manufacturing base for plug-in vehicles. That is why yesterday Senator Hatch and I introduced legislation to continue to promote this idea. Our 100- percent expensing provision would allow private companies to build or retool factories that will put American-made plug-ins in showrooms across the United States. I would like to thank Senators Kerry, Alexander, Stabenow, and Bill Nelson for being original cosponsors of this legislation.

Manufacturing these game-changing technologies in the United States will create jobs now, and it will sustain jobs for the long term. I am not just talking about in Michigan, but all over the country. It is an investment we need now more than ever.

If what I have said so far does not sway my colleagues, I hope they will consider it will probably not be the GM Volt to be the first plug- in in our marketplace. It will not even be a modified Toyota Prius. Last month, China's BYD Auto brought the first production lithium-ion, plug-in electric car to the market. So I hope my colleagues will renew their interest in this idea and review this bill and support including these manufacturing credits in a stimulus package.

Second, I think we have a tremendous opportunity in stimulus by infusing more intelligence into America's electricity grid. A smarter grid will help ensure that those plug-ins become a stabilizing and efficient energy source rather than a burden on the grid. For example, with smart grid metering and control devices, you could allow drivers to ``fill up'' their vehicles automatically, in their garage overnight when the electricity loads and prices are lowest.

Eventually, with a smart grid, plug-ins could also become their own ``virtual mini powerplants,'' allowing consumers to link their vehicles with millions of others and sell stored battery power to the electricity grid during periods when their vehicles are not in use.

But right now we are a long way from that promising future. Even though our Nation's electricity grid is vital to our economy and our way of life, it has been called one of the most complicated machines on Earth, it is outdated and one of the biggest roadblocks to fully incorporating all the renewable energy and energy efficiency that the 21st-century commerce can deliver.

Smart grid technology can change that and make our grid more efficient and reliable. A recent Department of Energy report found that a smart grid could improve the efficiency of power delivery by as much as 30 percent. And infusing intelligence into the grid enables real- time electricity pricing. It allows efficiency. It makes distributed generation work, and it makes the grid more resilient and empowers homeowners and businesses to take advantage of all those savings.

Now, in my home state, the Pacific Northwest National Lab did a demonstration project that found that consumers could save 10 percent on their current electricity bills basically by understanding how power was being used in their homes and then making decisions that were convenient for them to make.

The study found there were no technical hurdles standing in the way of wide-scale adoption of grid-friendly technologies, and these technologies are projected to reduce the need to build about $70 billion of new generation, transmission, and distribution systems over a 20-year period.

I for one cannot think of another source of energy that could quickly come to the market that could provide us 10 percent more fuel, but that is what a smarter grid could do for us, provide us 10 percent more fuel.

Now, how do we get there? Because many of these smart grid technologies are ready to go. According to a recently released report, if the Federal Government would invest $16 billion over the next 2 years--if we would invest $16 billion over the next 2 years--we would drive a $64 billion investment in related projects by the private sector, resulting in 280,000 direct jobs

across a variety of categories. So I believe the opportunity for stimulative activity by building an intelligent electricity grid should be one of the top priorities of our stimulus package.

Mr. President, 150,000 of those jobs could be created by the end of this year. As we look at more companies announcing layoffs, it is important we prioritize within the stimulus package those types of jobs that will be created in the very near future. And out of those 150,000 jobs, 140,000 would become permanent positions after smart grid deployment.

In 2007 I was very happy to have the chance to write a section of the Energy bill dealing with getting into place smart grid language. I know and realize many of my colleagues now want to appropriate resources to that section of the bill. I hope we can, in this package, because the more we incent development of smart grid technology and smart meters, the faster we are going to reach that deployment and savings of 10 percent to consumers and help in the creation of that 280,000 jobs.

I also believe as we look at the grid, we need to build out our transmission lines. While there is language providing the Western Power Marketing Association with resources to expand the grid, I also support giving the Bonneville Power Administration $5 billion in new borrowing authority, which they pay back to the Treasury with interest, to allow 4,700 megawatts of renewable energy to come on line in the Pacific Northwest for States such as Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. This additional access to capital, over the next 2 years, will create 50,000 jobs. So we know immediately that more jobs can be created in the other Washington by making the right grid investment decisions here in Washington DC.

The third area--besides plug-ins, besides a smarter grid--that I think can help us and provide a stimulating effect to our economy is to establish a 30-percent investment tax credit for construction or reequipping renewable energy or smart grid technology manufacturing facilities. So this incentive would go to anyone investing capital to produce the components of a clean energy economy, such as wind turbines and solar panels and grid technology. That will help us create jobs at home, and it will help us with new industries that can support entire communities and can help transform our energy system.

The solar industry is a good case study of why we need this incentive. First Solar is a leading American photovoltaic module maker. They built their first pilot plant in 2005 in Ohio. But when they needed to scale up production, generous manufacturing incentives and market demand drove them to Germany and Malaysia, leading them away from the United States.

If we can get a clean energy manufacturing incentive into the stimulus bill, it will launch a wave of new clean energy manufacturing facilities in the United States instead. Just the effect of this on the solar industry alone, it has been estimated, would create 315,000 jobs. So ensuring this kind of a manufacturing credit is critical.

The stimulus should also address one of the clean energy industry's most urgent challenges how to get the renewable production investment tax credits to work, again, given what has happened to the capital markets.

Vital investments in American infrastructure should not have to wait for Wall Street to get their house in order. There is something wrong when these companies that are key to our energy independence are unable to get financing because of the financial meltdown that has occurred. This situation is not only hurting our opportunities for clean energy, but it is hurting our opportunities for job creation.

Florida Power and Light, the largest owner of wind power projects in the United States, announced a 25-percent reduction in capital expenditures on wind in 2009. LM Glasfiber, a global leader in wind blades, is laying off 150 workers in Arkansas. OptiSolar, a maker of cutting-edge, thin-film solar cells, announced last week they had to lay off 300 people--almost half of its employees--and they are going to delay construction of what was to be the largest PV manufacturing facility in North America.

I know there are many people who are thinking about this now and how to put more flexibility into the Tax Code for these effected businesses, and I want my colleagues to understand that most of these proposals that I hope will make it into the stimulus bill have little or no cost to the U.S. Treasury. So I think this area is another opportunity to help fix the damage created by the financial markets, which has already hurt the hard work we did getting a clean energy incentive package that we passed last October.

I also believe we should expand a very successful initiative called the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds program, which provides publicly-owned utilities and states and municipalities an alternative to the production or investment tax credit which they cannot use. An expansion to CREBs would allow 6,000 megawatts of shovel-ready renewable energy projects to proceed, translating to over $15 billion in economic activity.

I also believe the last area we should focus on is making sure we have tax credit parity in our energy laws. One of the areas that has been an ongoing concern to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle has to do with the fact that many promising renewable energy technologies only receive half the production tax credit of mainstream technologies such as wind. It has inhibited a number of projects in my State, especially in biomass. This could be a great opportunity to correct this longstanding grievance and provide a lot more market predictability for other energies by giving everybody the same credit of about 2 cents a kilowatt hour. That way, we would be bringing all technology onto a level playing field and providing certainty about the kind of treatment those energy resources would get from the tax code.

So I believe these areas I have just outlined are very positive energy stimulus. I know for me, and I think for many of my colleagues, clean energy has become post-partisan; that is to say, everyone appreciates it is a game-changing technology and it can help us environmentally, with our national security, and the economic changes that are facing our Nation. The question is, how do we make sure these crucial energy measures get into the stimulus package we will be voting on in the next few weeks?

I plan to work with the President-elect and many of my colleagues both here in the Senate and in the House to make sure these energy provisions do become reality. We know as we face this financial crisis, we need to make the right decisions to put the few pillars in place that will be the strength we can lean on as our country faces these difficult times.

I can think of nothing more simple and game-changing than a $100 billion investment in clean energy to get us on the right track, and to make us the leaders in what is likely to be the largest industry of the 21st-century, producing jobs long into the future.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, the Senate can be very proud of a very significant accomplishment for the enjoyment and protection of wilderness areas, historical sites, national parks, forests, trails and scenic rivers. Collectively, this is one of the most sweeping conservation bills the Senate has passed in many years.

This bill has been through many twists and turns over the last year. But today's successful vote could not have been possible without the tenacity and dedication of the Majority Leader.

I thank the majority leader for his steadfast support and dedication to seeing that these important public land priorities become law.

There are a number my bills in this omnibus lands package that I would like to speak to.

First, the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act. This bill will create a National Park Service trail to celebrate the remarkable geologic history of the Pacific Northwest region. This bill has enjoyed regional, bipartisan support. I would like to thank Senators Murray, Wyden, Crapo, and my former colleagues Senators Smith and Craig for working with me on this legislation.

There are too many people to thank by name but I want to acknowledge the dedication of the Ice Age Floods Institute, particularly its President, Gary Kleinknecht, who has worked tirelessly to educate our country on the significance of the Ice Age Floods Geologic Trail.

In many ways, the members of the Institute serve as the proteges of people like University of Washington professor J. Harlan Bretz and USGS geologist Joseph Pardee, who fought to make credible their hypothesis about the historic existence of the Ice Age Floods.

This is a wonderful day for many communities, scientists, and Ice Age Floods enthusiasts throughout the Pacific Northwest, and for tourism and geologic education.

The Ice Age Floods Institute has promoted the development of an Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail for over 12 years. With the growing interest and enthusiasm for this concept, this Geologic Trail is a long time coming. The story of the Ice Age Floods is a truly amazing story of the forces of nature and their impact on our lives.

When geologists first saw the vast Columbia Basin in eastern Washington, they recognized that glaciers and flowing water had played a large part in shaping the extraordinary landscape, with its canyons, buttes, dry cataracts, boulder fields, and gravel bars.

During the last Ice Age, some 13,000 to 18,000 years ago, an ice cap covered almost all of Canada and extended down across much of the Pacific Northwest. In Idaho, a 2,000-foot-high glacier backed water up in western Montana until it formed Glacial Lake Missoula, totaling 530 cubic miles or more than Lakes Erie and Ontario combined.

When Glacial Lake Missoula deepened enough, the sheer force of the backed up water undermined the glacial ice dam, and the ice give way in a cracking explosion. The huge lake was released all at once.

When the dam broke, a towering mass of water and ice was released and swept across parts of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon on its way to the ocean.

The peak rate of flow was ten times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world. The huge lake may have emptied in as little as 2 or 3 days.

Geologists at the University of Washington counted 89 floods without reaching bottom, leading to present-day estimates of up to 100 catastrophic water releases.

The glacial ice dam would break, sparking cataclysmic floods, fresh ice would eventually flow from Canada to once more create an ice dam and Lake Missoula, and the cycle would be repeated every 50 years or so. It ended only with the melting of the continental ice cap.

These epic floods fundamentally changed the geography and way of life in the Pacific Northwest. The coulees, buttes, boulder fields, lakes, ridges and gravel bars they left behind still define the unique landscape of our State and our region today.

These floods are a remarkable part of our natural heritage. They have profoundly affected the geography and ways of life in the region but have remained largely unknown to the general public.

The legacy of the floods includes not only stark scabland and dramatic dry coulees and cataracts, but also exceptionally fertile, productive farmland, and significant wetlands and aquifers.

Creating a National Park Service trail to recognize and celebrate how these floods literally shaped the face of our state will provide an unparalleled educational resource for Washingtonians and visitors from across the country.

It will also spur economic development and create jobs in local communities across eastern and central Washington.

I appreciate the Senate's attention to this bill that will help educate and interpret one of the largest flooding events known to science.

To date, more than 30 entities spanning State and local governments, chambers of commerce, and other civic and community organization support creation of the trail concept.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act. This hill would transfer an acre and a half of Forest Service land to the Snoqualmie Pass fire district to help them build a new fire station.

I specifically thank the fire district commissioner Chris Caviezel for working so hard on behalf of the people at Snoqualmie Pass and providing top rate emergency services at one of the most traveled mountain passes in the country.

During our recent winter storms, which brought several feet of snow, following by pounding rain and massive land slides at the Pass, Chris has been on the front lines providing tireless and dedicated round the clock public service to keep Snoqualmie Pass safe.

The Snoqualmie Pass Fire Department serves a portion of two counties on both sides of the Cascade Mountains along Interstate 90, a community of 350 full-time residents that peaks to 1,500 during the ski season.

Additionally, the ski area estimates 20,000 patrons on a busy weekend, and the Department of Transportation estimates that up to 60,000 vehicles travel through the fire district on a busy day, making it the busiest mountain highway in the country.

This area is also the major transportation corridor for goods and services between eastern and western Washington. The all-volunteer fire department averages over 300 calls a year with about a 10 percent annual increase in call volumes, which is more than triple the amount of calls a typical all-volunteer fire department would respond to in a year.

Eighty-four percent of those incidents are for nontax paying residents. Consequently, the fire department has the characteristics of a large city with the limited resources of a small community.

In recent years, this area has been the scene of major winter snowstorms, multi-vehicle accidents, and even avalanches.

The fire district is often the first responder to incidents in the area, which is prone to rock slides and avalanches and it is not uncommon for this community to be isolated for hours or even days at a time.

Several thousand people can be stranded at the pass during those periods when the Pass is closed and while the Department of Transportation works quickly to get the roads back open, it can be very taxing on local resources.

For decades, the fire district has been leasing its current site from the Forest Service. They operate out of an aging building that was not designed to be a fire station.

Through their hard work and dedication, they have served their community ably despite this building's many shortcomings. However, with traffic on the rise and the need for emergency services in the area growing, the fire district needs to move to a true fire station.

The fire district has identified a nearby site that would better serve the public safety needs at the pass. This location would provide easy access to the interstate in either direction, reducing emergency response times.

The parcel is on Forest Service property, immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange, between a frontage road and the interstate itself. The parcel was formerly a disposal site during construction of the freeway and is now a gravel lot.

It is my understanding that there are offers of support to construct a new fire station from State and local officials, and to mitigate any effects of construction, and I support those efforts.

I appreciate the efforts of Senator Murray and my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to review this issue and bring this bill forward. I look forward to continuing to work with the community at the pass and my colleagues to improve public safety in the area.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the Pacific Northwest trail a national scenic trail.

The Pacific Northwest is home to some of the most pristine and breathtaking scenery this country has to offer--from vast patches of forest and steep, snow capped mountain ranges to sandy beaches, rocky ocean coast, and green pastures.

The Pacific Northwest Trail, zigzagging from the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast, offers all of these spectacular views. The Pacific Northwest Trail, running from the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast, is 1,200 miles long and ranks among the most scenic trails in the world.

This carefully chosen path runs through the Rocky Mountains, Selkirk Mountains, Pasayten Wilderness, North Cascades, Olympic Mountains, and Wilderness Coast. From beginning to end it passes through three States, crosses three national parks, and winds through seven national forests.

And designating the Pacific Northwest trail a national scenic trail will give it the proper recognition, bring benefits to neighboring rural communities, and promote its protection, development, and maintenance.

In 1980, the National Park Service and the Forest Service completed a feasibility study of the proposed Pacific Northwest trail. And the study concluded that the Pacific Northwest trail has the scenic and recreational qualities needed for designation as a national scenic trail.

Today, approximately 950 miles of the Pacific Northwest trail are completed and provide significant outdoor recreational experiences to citizens and visitors of the United States.

With more recognition and more people from all over the country ``putting on their hiking boots,'' the trail will receive more eligibility for grants funding and increased attention, which in turn will result in increased use and more economic activity in rural areas.

National scenic trails provide recreation, conservation, and enjoyment of significant scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities. The Pacific Northwest trail is a national prize and should be recognized as such.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my wildland firefighter safety legislation. This legislation will improve accountability and transparency in wildland firefighter safety training programs. Wildland firefighting and the safety of wildland firefighters is vitally important to our brave men and women who battle these blazes, and for the communities that depend on them.

When wildfires do occur we rely on courageous men and women to protect our communities and natural resources. Every summer, we send thousands of brave firefighters into harm's way to protect our Nation's rural communities and public lands.

Of course, fighting fires is inherently dangerous. But we must not abide preventable deaths: We must not lose firefighters simply because rules are broken, policies are ignored, and no one is held accountable.

Six years ago, Washington State suffered a horrible tragedy. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, during the second worst drought in Washington history, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control and four courageous firefighters died. Sadly, subsequent investigations revealed that they didn't have to die. The Forest Service has said the tragedy ``could have been prevented.''

Since then, the courage of the Thirtymile families, standing up and demanding change, has had a positive impact on the safety of our wildland firefighters. But we must do much more.

Through training and certification we can lower the risk to the brave men and women who protect our forests and communities. It's critical that Congress is actively engaged to ensure this happens.

An inspector general's report released in March 2006 found problems in the Forest Service's oversight of contracting firefighting crews. Hundreds are contracted by the Forest Service and State agencies every year to fight fires. Roughly one-third of the records it sampled showed that fire fighters' qualification standards had not been met. Too many have been dispatched to fight fires without the necessary preparation.

This is not new. A 2003 Seattle Times report cited an internal Forest Service memo identifying the lack of accountability in the contract firefighting program. A 2004 GAO report found that insufficiently trained contract crews hampered firefighting efforts. And a 2004 IG audit found that at the time the Forest Service could not monitor the certification of more than 80 percent of its own firefighters. That is unacceptable.

This legislation is a very modest yet important proposal. The Senate has already passed it once as an amendment to the 2003 healthy forests legislation, but sadly, it was not included in the conference version of the bill.

It is clear: this bill's provisions are still a necessary tool to ensure that Congress and Federal wildland firefighting agencies are as proactive as possible in protecting the lives of wildland firefighters.

First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety and Transparency Act requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds they spend on firefighter safety and training. Congress and taxpayers deserve to know whether and how Federal funds are being spent to ensure the safety of firefighters.

Improved accountability means improved safety: I hope the Forest Service will agree to track its funds as part of the administration's annual budget request.

Second, my legislation requires the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on their departments' safety and training programs. We need to monitor Federal firefighting agencies and ensure commitments to reform are being acted upon. An annual check-in on safety programs from Congress is essential to making that happen.

Finally, my bill would require the Forest Service to ensure that private firefighting crews working under federal contracts receive training consistent with their Federal counterparts. This is critical not only to protect those private crews but also to safeguard the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the contractors on the fire line.

And so we have an obligation to protect and prepare the brave firefighters we send into harm's way. I look forward to working with my House colleagues on approving this legislation.

All of this could not have been accomplished without the strong support and hard work and dedication of the majority leader and I thank the leader for successfully moving these priorities.

Mr. President, I rise to join in the discussion about this important legislation and to thank the dean of our women Senate delegation, the Senator from Maryland, for her steadfast support of this legislation and continuing to make sure that people are aware of the urgency of passing this legislation. I also thank my colleague, Senator Murray, also on the HELP Committee, who has been working on this legislation, along with Senator Clinton who was an original sponsor.

Last year I had the opportunity to attend a rally where I met these three young Americans: Gussie, Sofia, and Leo. I thought their story was compelling because they made their own signs and talked about how they will work for justice. Their plan to talk about discrimination and the difference in pay equity on this particular day was to walk around the street corners begging for 23 cents. They were doing that to show that this was the difference between what women get paid and what men get paid for doing the exact same job. This young generation of Americans wants to grow up in a world where they know there is going to be equal pay for equal work.

I would like to tell them that the Senate has acted on this legislation and moved forward. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn't share that view. I took delight in our hometown newspaper actually saying the Supreme Court kicked female workers in the teeth with their 2007 ruling and that what was important was restoring average Americans' right to justice as a good place to start undoing the damage that has already been done.

This issue is so important to women because the legacy of this injustice means not just on average we make 77 cents for every dollar our male counterpart can make in a job, but we stand to lose up to $250,000 in income over our lifetime because of this injustice. Those are real dollars.

At a time of great economic uncertainty, when every penny counts, it is more important that we close the gap between what women and men earn in the workplace.

Last year we saw more jobs lost than in any other year since World War II, and the unemployment rate has climbed to 7.2 percent. In contrast to previous recessions, we are seeing early signs that women are being especially hard hit because of the economic downturn. So we want to make sure, that as unemployment numbers rapidly rise, those women who are still in the workforce are going to get the same pay as their male counterparts.

In 2007, women's median wage fell by 3 percent. But during that same time period, the average decline for men was only about .5 percent. So we can see that our economy and how women are being impacted is impacting individual families. So I am here to urge my colleagues to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act--a piece of legislation that will help us close this gap of injustice and help these young people understand they are going to grow up in a society where there is faith and justice and fairness.

As my colleague from Washington said, this bill is about gender discrimination, but it also extends to claims of pay discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, disability, and age. That is why I think it should be a top priority for us, and I am sure it is a top priority for many civil rights groups across our country.

But this bill, as my colleagues have already discussed, will allow workers to file pay discrimination claims as long as the discrimination continues. A worker's ability to challenge unequal pay should continue as long as the discrimination is there. So it is their most recent discriminatory paycheck that will be the trigger for allowing them to file a case.

Now, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have not supported this legislation in the past to now come to the aid of helping this legislation get to the President's desk.

A few years ago, we had a similar case with the Supreme Court dealing with identity theft. The Supreme Court had interpreted a case to say that the statute of limitation for a consumer harmed by identity theft to file a lawsuit to recover from financial harm is 24 months from when it first occurred rather than when the consumer discovered it. Many of us came and made the case, through the legislative process, that sometimes you do not know when your identity has been stolen, and the consequence of that is sometimes by the time the statute of limitations had run out, you did not have a chance to bring your case.

Well, we did something about that. We passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act that helped create a framework that said that at the time of discovery of the act of your identity being stolen was the time the statute of limitations started to run--very similar to what we are trying to do here. In fact, it was in response to a Supreme Court case in which the U.S. Congress said: We do not like the Supreme Court's decision. It might be based on the law, but let's change the law and make sure there is justice for those who have had their identity stolen. That legislation passed 95 to 2.

It is a similar principle here. We are saying some individuals do not know that discrimination has happened. We want to change the law to say that the most recent paycheck that established discrimination gives you the ability to bring up the case.

So I would ask my colleagues, if you were willing to support the previous legislation, the same kind of scenario dealing with identity theft, why are you not willing to give the same kind of justice to women who are trying to get equal pay for the equal work that they are doing?

I hope my colleagues will take the opportunity, now that the Supreme Court has put this ball in our court, to create a fair and equitable process and pass this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I don't think 5 minutes would possibly be enough time for me to explain all

the things I would like to say. I am sure I could spend an hour talking about credit default swaps. I am sure I could spend 2 days talking about the lack of transparency in the financial markets. I am sure I could spend a lot of time explaining what I think is the right thing we should do to put as much liquidity into the markets as possible. So I will try to be succinct.

I came to the Senate knowing what it is like to take a tough vote. To make a decision that is right for the American public. It's most important to do the right thing. I also know what it is like to see millions of dollars in the stock market go away and watch a stock bubble burst. I also know what it is like to stand on the Senate floor, as I did 3 years ago, when someone tried to cram legislation in the Defense authorization bill to open up drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and I said then that it was the equivalent to legislative blackmail.

I am not going to vote for this legislation tonight based on whether someone crams in tax credits, for which I actually have fought so hard. I am going to render my decision based on what I think is important for the American people.

I think there is something that is missing in our discussion. I applaud Chairman Dodd who has worked hard on the Banking Committee. I applaud my colleague who just spoke, who spoke eloquently about the need to do something. But the problem with the legislation before us is that it is choosing winners and losers in corporate America. It is inserting the Federal Government in a role in which they decide, along with the private sector, exactly how funds should be allocated.

I am for the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government backing these institutions. What I am not for is turning the keys to the Treasury over to the private sector.

There is much we could agree on tonight. We could agree on the new changes to the FDIC rule. We could agree on mark to market accounting changes and to bringing better marketing and accountability to the system. We could agree on the uptick rule and other predictability measures that help the market understand that there is a broad commitment by this institution to do something to help stabilize the markets.

But I am very concerned about the ``pick here, pick there'' approach that has transpired in the last several weeks. I ask you to just think of one institution, in my State, Washington Mutual--which I would not necessarily applaud for its subprime lending rates or for its use and backing of credit default swaps, but I would ask you to consider the fact that as that institution was forced into sale by this Government, who were the winners and losers in that? J.P. Morgan got the assets of that institution and benefitted from that. In fact, J.P. Morgan predicted on a conference call the night they acquired Washington Mutual that after 1 year with their investment, they would have an over $500 million return on that investment. That is 27-percent returned in 1 year.

The FDIC got some money out of that, too. And then to say nothing about the over 60,000 shareholders who were wiped out.

My complaint is: where is J.P. Morgan who should be standing up for the retirement plans, the deferred compensation plans, and other packages that the employees at that company were due?

It is very convenient for us to now choose that we are going to add to J.P. Morgan's bottom line. In fact, if we would instead do what I am suggesting, we could have an equity proposal instead of having TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as the roof over America. Instead, we could have an equity program where the United States would leverage our capital and spur 10 to 12 times the private sector investment at the same time, our Nation would be better funded, better prepared, for the onslaught of trouble that is still going to remain after we pass this legislation.

I could not even get my amendment to be considered. So, so much for the transparency of the Senate.

I am going to continue to work for this idea, for equity, for a more leveraged position, and that we do the traditional role that Government has done time and time again: to use our equity to leverage the private sector to secure our economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pacific Salmon Stronghold Conservation Act of 2008, together with my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski. I am grateful for all the input and collaboration from key stakeholders in Washington State that I have received on this legislation. I am especially grateful for the input from the Quinault Tribe, the Wild Salmon Center, and Bill Ruckelshaus.

While current Federal salmon recovery efforts are focused on recovering salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act, ESA, seeking to ``restore what we've lost,'' the Salmon Stronghold Act seeks to ``protect what we have.'' To this end, I have consistently fought for increased funding for the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund and will continue to proudly do so. In addition, with this legislation we will direct new Federal resources on protection of healthy salmon population.

Restoring threatened and endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest is an imperative. Wild Pacific salmon are central to the culture, economy, and environment of western North America. The Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, since its inception in 2000, has allowed my home State of Washington to focus the efforts of counties and conservation districts, on average, to remove 300 barriers to fish passage and to open 300 miles of habitat each year. That is 2,400 barriers removed and 2,400 miles of habitat restored. In 2007, for every Federal dollar spent on this program it leveraged about $2 in local and State dollars.

I will continue the fight to protect this salmon recovery funding. But more must be done. This legislation will complement ongoing recovery efforts to ensure the future viability of healthy wild Pacific salmon runs by establishing a Federal program supporting voluntary public-private incentive-based efforts to proactively maintain the rivers that are home to the thriving populations of Pacific salmon-- known as our ``Salmon Strongholds.''

This bill does that by establishing a new regional Salmon Stronghold Partnership program that provides Federal support and resources to protect a network of the healthiest remaining wild Pacific salmon ecosystems in North America. The bill promotes enhanced coordination and cooperation of Federal, tribal, State and local governments, public and private land managers, fisheries managers, power authorities, and nongovernmental organizations in efforts to protect salmon strongholds.

It is time to increase funding to recovery efforts, but also focus on prevention. It is time to adopt the kind of comprehensive solution that can solidify wild Pacific salmon's place in American culture for generations to come.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pacific Salmon Stronghold Conservation Act of 2008, together with my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski. I am grateful for all the input and collaboration from key stakeholders in Washington State that I have received on this legislation. I am especially grateful for the input from the Quinault Tribe, the Wild Salmon Center, and Bill Ruckelshaus.

While current Federal salmon recovery efforts are focused on recovering salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act, ESA, seeking to ``restore what we've lost,'' the Salmon Stronghold Act seeks to ``protect what we have.'' To this end, I have consistently fought for increased funding for the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund and will continue to proudly do so. In addition, with this legislation we will direct new Federal resources on protection of healthy salmon population.

Restoring threatened and endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest is an imperative. Wild Pacific salmon are central to the culture, economy, and environment of western North America. The Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, since its inception in 2000, has allowed my home State of Washington to focus the efforts of counties and conservation districts, on average, to remove 300 barriers to fish passage and to open 300 miles of habitat each year. That is 2,400 barriers removed and 2,400 miles of habitat restored. In 2007, for every Federal dollar spent on this program it leveraged about $2 in local and State dollars.

I will continue the fight to protect this salmon recovery funding. But more must be done. This legislation will complement ongoing recovery efforts to ensure the future viability of healthy wild Pacific salmon runs by establishing a Federal program supporting voluntary public-private incentive-based efforts to proactively maintain the rivers that are home to the thriving populations of Pacific salmon-- known as our ``Salmon Strongholds.''

This bill does that by establishing a new regional Salmon Stronghold Partnership program that provides Federal support and resources to protect a network of the healthiest remaining wild Pacific salmon ecosystems in North America. The bill promotes enhanced coordination and cooperation of Federal, tribal, State and local governments, public and private land managers, fisheries managers, power authorities, and nongovernmental organizations in efforts to protect salmon strongholds.

It is time to increase funding to recovery efforts, but also focus on prevention. It is time to adopt the kind of comprehensive solution that can solidify wild Pacific salmon's place in American culture for generations to come.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the series of votes we are going to be having on the extenders package and to thank my Chairman, Senator Baucus, for his leadership on this legislation because this is important legislation my colleagues are going to be voting on in a short period of time.

Senator Baucus has been diligent in working with Senator Grassley on various provisions that I believe are good for Washington State and for the country--specifically, the R&D tax credit and the continuation of that credit for 2 years. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch, who worked out a more robust tax credit for the future. We also are extending the college expense deduction; a continuation of that at $4,000. Many parents are struggling with many financial obligations, and college education costs that are continuing to rise. This legislation makes sure they can deduct some of these expenses and helps out those taxpayers.

For us in Washington State, it also is critically important we be able to continue to deduct sales tax from our Federal income tax obligations. It was about 22 years ago that Congress took away this opportunity for Washingtonians to be treated fairly, just like other States in the Union, to be able to deduct sales tax. We recently reestablished this policy, and this bill continues it for another 2 years, so that we

are able to deduct what obligations we pay to the State of Washington from our Federal income tax obligation. This is stimulus to us in Washington State, and it is about tax fairness. We are glad that, for 2 more years, Washington residents will be able to either take a standard deduction or itemize their deductions and claim these taxes against their Federal tax obligation.

I remind my colleagues, too, about the importance of the energy provisions we are about to vote on. We are making a significant change in energy policy by promoting clean energy solutions for our country. In fact, were we to look at the 2005 bill we passed, which had many similar tax provisions in it related to energy production, it was probably two-thirds tilted toward fossil fuel and one-third for green energy. This bill turns that equation on its head; it is two-thirds for green energy solutions and one-third for fossil fuel. That heads us in the right direction as a Congress and as a country, it is where we should put our priorities.

This legislation unleashes the ability for us to focus on solar power in America. It unleashes the ability of solar power by giving it an 8- year tax credit horizon, the same we are giving to fuel cell technology. Concentrating solar power technology is a new endeavor that holds great promise for us in America and particularly in the Southwest. We think that over 400,000 jobs could be created in the next 8 years thanks to this technology, and those are jobs right here in the United States. That gives the United States the ability to produce enough power for probably over 7 million American households. It is also a $232 billion investment that we expect to see into our economy coming from these investment in solar energy. We are truly unleashing that power and producing what will be emission-free fuel for our homes and businesses.

For plug-in electric cars, this bill provides up to a $7,500 tax credit so an American citizen will be able to get a plug-in car and use that to drive down their cost of transportation. If you think about it, instead of spending $4 a gallon for gasoline, with a plug-in vehicle, your cost per gallon would probably be only about a dollar. That would be significant savings for the American consumer.

Third, we are including, for the first time in the Tax Code, faster depreciation for what are called smart meters. This technology is going to help us as consumers understand the power we are using and how we can manage that usage to reduce our energy costs. Tom Friedman has done a good job of evangelizing this. He believes this is where IT meets ET--where Internet technology meets energy technology. The fact is that we can build a smart electricity grid that understands what consumers are using and empowers those consumers to help drive down their costs. Once we get these meters installed throughout the country we will begin to realize energy savings just by moving power more efficiently around the electricity grids. We can save 10 percent on what power we are using today by just consuming it in a more efficient fashion.

This provision will help with the deployment of smart meters and smart grid technology that will help us move forward.

When we think about this platform of distributed generation, smart grid technology, the advent of efficiencies, we can see how we can build a national smart grid that will help us immensely because we know we are going to have an increase in demand, we know we want to reduce carbon emissions, we know there are intermittent sources of power such as we are talking about with wind and solar that we can work in cooperation with our other power sources, and we know that substituting electricity for oil can make a major transition for us in getting off our dependence on foreign oil.

All of these are improvements to that electricity grid. It is like taking our current two-lane dirt road highway and turning it into a superhighway of a smart electricity grid that can empower us in making this transition.

I am very happy that the accelerated depreciation provision made it into the legislation. I thank Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley for making that part of the tax incentives we are going to pass here today.

Lastly, there are over $10,000 in tax breaks to American consumers to try to help them lower their energy costs into the future. I know from the Presiding Officer that in the Northeast part of our country, a lot of people have suffered under the high cost of home heating fuel. This legislation helps them with tax breaks on wood-burning stoves so they can install the latest technology to turn wood pellets into a better, more efficient source of fuel and help drive down the demand on home heating oil. Hopefully this can help reduce the cost to many of the Northeast residents who are still using oil as their primary heating source.

The $10,000 in tax breaks, as I said, for items such as plug-in automobiles, wood stoves, solar panels on the homes, small wind farms, and a variety of things are going to help the American consumer reduce the burden they are now facing from higher energy costs.

We are taking this direction and moving closer to what we think the United States can be--a world leader in green technology. We are creating the platform and putting in place the right incentives in this legislation that will move our country away from its dependence on fossil fuel and on to the clean energy technologies that will make the United States a world energy leader.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do wish to be recognized, along with my colleague from Nevada, to talk about the importance of the passage of this legislation, and not just the extenders--which are good for not only the States of Washington and Nevada as it relates to sales tax and R&D tax credits and county payments and a whole variety of things--but most importantly these renewable energy credits, where we are trying to change the focus and the direction of our country by unleashing the power of the solar industry to help create about 400,000 new jobs for our country. So we do want to get to this package done.

I thank the leaders as well, Senators Reid and McConnell, for trying to get this legislation on the floor. I hope we can get through this last hiccup and actually get this legislation before our colleagues and get it passed today--hopefully today--because I think that is how important it is to send out this message.

I certainly thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for their perseverance in continuing to try to work through vote after vote on this so we could have a package.

I want to say to the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, how much I appreciate his willingness to engage in this subject starting really the beginning of this year and for understanding what the opportunity was to look at renewable energy and to make sure the tax credits were more predictable and there was more long-term certainty for businesses so that we could take advantage of the manufacturing base that could be created in the United States. I certainly applaud him and his staff for their perseverance in trying to come up with a funding mechanism for this package of green energy tax credits in the last 2 weeks and coming up with a breakthrough on exactly how to pay for them.

So we are at this momentous point now where the bipartisan efforts of working across the aisle have paid off. Frankly, I think we need more of that--working across the aisle--on some of these solutions so that we can actually move legislation. I hope we can come back in the next few hours and actually talk about some more of the specifics of this legislation because it is really breakthrough legislation.

For the first time, we are giving an extension of the solar investment tax credit and fuel cell tax credit that will, I believe, change investment patterns in such a significant way that we will be reaping the benefits of that kind of generation of power to replace what we are currently doing on our grid today.

We also have incentivizing new provisions for plug-in electric cars, which will help in that transition so that people understand our future source of energy and power for our transportation sector has a very bright future. We provide for tax breaks for participating in that transition and help them realize they will be able to drive for $1.00 a gallon in these plug-in electric cars instead of for $3.50 or $4 a gallon using fossil fuel.

In this legislation there is over $10,000 in consumer tax breaks and credits on all sorts of things, from home improvements to making sure that consumers, particularly in the northeast part of our country, get a tax break for moving off of home heating oil and on to wood stoves that will help them reduce the cost in their heating bills in the future.

There are a lot of breakthroughs in this legislation which I hope to get back to this afternoon. So I hope we can get our colleague from Texas to remove his objection and that we will be able to move forward on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.