Floor Statements

I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding me some of his time.

This has been a big priority on this side of the aisle, to get clean energy tax credits so we can continue to stimulate investment in wind and solar and energy efficiency, and a variety of others--fuel cells, biomass, geothermal, and the list goes on and on. This is the fourth time we have tried to get to this legislation. Three other times we have come within one vote, so we are here today with more bipartisan support for a proposed solution.

My colleagues and the chairman of the Finance Committee have worked very hard on this legislation in general, on the concept of trying to push forward these tax credits, but we are at a critical point. In fact, I have said to my colleagues that Rome is burning; that is, we are at the precipice now of projects actually getting canceled. Having been in business, I know what it is like to have your first quarter earnings report and then have to show some forward advancement to your investors about your projects. That is where we are. And because we aren't giving certainty in the Tax Code to these investors, they are going to start canceling projects.

So we cannot wait another month, another 2 months to get about this tax. If we want to give certainty to the markets to continue to invest in alternative energy to take some of the pressure off of the rising cost of energy, now is the time to act. So I hope my colleagues will think about the bipartisan nature of the amendment. We have failed three times and have come one vote short to try to help our own economies in our States and in our country by saving this investment cycle. Give the predictability so we can keep 100,000 jobs working, so we can get renewable energy produced and invested in during 2008, and so we can have the production of CO2-reducing energy supply and get that going now.

I could say to my colleagues that we are almost at a point where the United States is so far behind what other countries are doing that we are not even going to be able to claim we are leading in this area if we do not get about the task. So if the votes are here, let's start voting to say renewable energy and its ability to stimulate the economy is a priority.

I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, the senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, who did an eloquent job talking about the shocking news that came out last Friday about the Air Force's decision to go with the KC-30 tanker over the Boeing KC-767 plane. I know my colleagues from Kansas want to continue this dialog as well.

What we see is a lot of concern and questions that have not been answered by the Air Force. I appreciate the fact that Speaker Pelosi also issued a statement today questioning the decision by the Air Force and asking for further congressional review. That is why my colleagues are here this morning. We want answers from the Air Force. Frankly, we don't want to wait another week to get them. For 75 years, Boeing has been making tanker products. They know what they are doing. They submitted a bid to the Air Force for a more flexible plane with a cost- effective life cycle. It has proven boom technology. This technology is used to refuel aircraft for the militaries all over the world. Other governments have already bought this product and have made the decision to use this technology. It is amazing to my colleagues and me that the Air Force would make this decision about these planes based one bid that is a proven technology and has proven successful for more than 70 years and all of a sudden switch to a product that has yet to be built and yet to be proven. The Air Force has made assertions and assumptions without giving Congress the answers.

What I am really amazed about, frankly, is that we are seeing some of the highest fuel costs in America and that impacts our Air Force as well and I want to know why the Air Force picked such a large plane, when their specs clearly asked for a medium-sized plane. If the Air Force wanted a large plane, the Air Force should have simply asked for a large plane. The Boeing Company could have provided a 777 instead of the 767. But that is not what the Air Force asked. I take the Air Force at its word when they say they want to be more energy efficient. In fact, the Air Force uses more than half of all the fuel the U.S. Government consumes each year. Aviation fuel accounts for more than 80 percent of the Air Force's total energy bill. In 2006, they spent more than $5.8 billion for almost 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel, more than twice what they spent in 2003.

If anybody thinks fuel costs are somehow magically going to come down, they are not. The Air Force needs to consider the impact of fuel costs in the future. In fact, I believe it is a national security concern as to where the Air Force is going to get fuel in the future.

Just last Friday, the Air Force Assistant Secretary told the House Armed Services Committee that it wants to leave a greener footprint with more environmentally sound energy resources. Well, if the Air Force is coming up to Capitol Hill talking about a greener, more fuel- efficient plane and at the same time awarding a contract for a plane that burns 24 percent more fuel than the Boeing KC-767, they do not have their act together.

This is what Assistant Secretary Bill Anderson said:

The increasing costs of energy and the nation's commitment

to reducing its dependence on foreign oil have led to the

development of the Air Force energy strategy--to reduce

demand, increase supply and change the culture within the Air

Force so that energy is a consideration in everything we do.

Well, I certainly want to know what consideration the Air Force gave to this new energy mandate in their decision to go with the KC-30 over the KC-767, when the Boeing plane is 24 percent more fuel efficient.

Now, one of the things the Air Force stressed in the contract announcement was the size of the KC-30. It is a slightly bigger plane, and the Air Force claims to want that larger plane because it can carry more fuel. However, that fuel is going to cost us.

Since the Vietnam war, the average amount of fuel offloaded from these air tankers is 70,000 pounds. When these tankers are out refueling planes the average amount of fuel they need to carry to complete a mission is less than 70,000 pounds, and that is during combat operations when they are very busy, which obviously would be less during in peacetime operations. This begs the question: Why did the Air Force choose a foreign-built tanker that has the capacity to carry 245,000 pounds of fuel versus the right-sized plane from Boeing that carries 205,000 pounds of fuel? Why did they choose a plane they know is going to have more expensive life cycle costs and more expensive on fuel costs, instead of buying the right sized plane? That would be like driving a humvee to the Capitol every day when you could drive a more fuel-efficient car. The Air Force has to live up to their commitment to a greener energy strategy.

The second issue that is troubling to me is the fact that there is an issue about runway, ramp, and infrastructure capacity. The KC-767 tanker is a smaller plane, it has ability to land on many more airstrips we have access to around the world. The Boeing tanker can land on shorter runways, takes up less ramp space, and altogether needs less infrastructure. The KC-767 can operate at over 1,000 bases and airstrips worldwide.

For example, at a strategic central Asian airbase in Manas, Kyrgyzstan that I think is key to the war on terrorism, the current runway cannot support the KC-30 plane. It cannot support the plane the Air Force just selected. However, it can support the KC-767 that Boeing offered. Again, it begs the question: why did the Air Force would choose a larger plane when it knows it is going to be unable to land at many bases and airstrips? Are we going to have to pay for the cost of infrastructure improvements of that as well?

It is very important, given these fuel issues and these infrastructure issues, that the Air Force prove to Congress that the cost-effectiveness throughout the life cycle of this procurement really does pan out. If we are simply talking about buying cheaper planes up front, but the life-cycle cost of these planes turns out to be exorbitant--because the fuel is more expensive, because the plane cannot land at various bases--and you have to spend billions more on both of those things, that is very troubling.

The reason this is so troubling to me is because I have seen this same issue play out in the commercial marketplace. Airbus planes have been backed by government financing in the commercial markets, so they were able to put a cheaper plane out in front of many governments across the globe. Boeing, on the other hand, has proven with technology to have more fuel-efficient planes, and they were able to show people that the true life cycle costs of their planes were actually more cost effective. The end result is a WTO dispute over the financing of Airbus by government-backed operations.

What I am trying to say is that the private sector has figured it out. In the commercial space, fuel-efficient planes are paying their way. I wonder why the Air Force did not figure out the same scenario and did not figure out that they will save U.S. taxpayers' dollars by having a more fuel-efficient plane. I also ask the Air Force to explain when the Boeing tanker is 22 percent cheaper to maintain because of the flexibility advantages it has.

I have concerns that Boeing worked hard to meet the requirements the Air Force set. The 767 platform best matched what the Air Force wanted. If they wanted a bigger plane with more capacity, they simply could have asked for one. Yet here we are with a questionable decision that I think raises concerns about the ability of the Department of Defense to maintain critical skills. We need to make sure there is a homegrown workforce and engineers to deliver products we need.

The U.S. Government needs to consider the national security implications of fuel efficiency in this procurement decision. It needs to take a look

at the U.S. workforce and determine whether the loss of high-skill manufacturing jobs is impacting our national security. I plan to ask the Government Accountability Office to investigate these issues and report back to Congress so we can have a full debate and move ahead.

I will remind the Air Force that in the conclusion of their testimony last week before Congress, they stated: We will continue to wisely invest in our precious military construction and operations and maintenance. They highlighted energy as the key element wise investment. I think the Air Force has a lot of explaining to do, and I want to know why they have made this choice. I guarantee you that Congress will continue to ask the tough questions until the information is clear to everyone in America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and the reauthorization we are considering today.

Passage of this bill in the Senate is long overdue. We haven't passed an update to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act since 1992, and the law has now been expired for 8 years.

Since this time, we have seen the continuation of unacceptable trends in the health of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. American Indians and Alaskan Natives across the country are 400 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, 291 percent more likely to die from diabetes complications, and 67 percent more likely to die from influenza and pneumonia than other groups.

In my State of Washington, the average life expectancy of an American Indian is estimated to be 4 years below that of the general population, as reported by the Indian Health Service for the years 2000 through 2002. This is a troubling increase from the gap of 2.8 years reported by the Indian Health Service for 1994.

These disparities must not continue. We owe it to Indian Country to make good on our promise--a promise embedded in long-standing trust agreements--to ensure that the health needs of American Indians and Alaskan Natives are taken care of.

Enactment of this bill, of which I am a proud cosponsor, is a necessary step that will help us fully realize our obligations. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act must be reauthorized, and most importantly, modernized to ensure that the services delivered under the Indian Health Service reflect the advances made in health care delivery.

This reauthorization makes much needed improvements to the way health care is administered to American Indians. It makes new authorizations for home and community based care, a cost-effective and much desired alternative to traditional long-term care facilities. It expands behavioral health services to address disorders beyond the traditional focus on alcohol and substance abuse. And it requires that individuals in need of mental help get access to a continuum of care such as hospitalization and detoxification services.

Importantly, this bill includes long-term reauthorization of health services for urban Indians. As my colleagues know, urban Indians account for a vast majority of the American Indian population, with nearly 7 out of 10 American Indians and Alaskan Natives living in or near an urban area.

Such a large population cannot be left behind in this reauthorization. Urban Indians face similar health disparities as their counterparts who live on reservations, and they are not removed from our Nation's trust obligation because of where they live.

Washington State is grateful for the efforts of two urban Indian organizations working to provide critically needed health care to this underserved population. The Seattle Indian Health Board and the N.A.T.I.V.E. Project of Spokane have remained strong components of our State's health and social safety net, providing over 15,000 unique patients with comprehensive primary care, mental health, and social services.

The Seattle Indian Health Board also serves as a vital health research and surveillance center for the country under its Urban Indian Health Institute program. There is much to be learned about the issues and barriers facing urban Indians, making the comprehensive collection and analysis of information from this program indispensible to our work to improve the health of our communities.

Continuing Federal support for these and the other 32 entities currently receiving Federal resources for urban Indian health care must remain a top priority under this Government's strategy to address the disparities facing all American Indians.

I am excited that we have come so close to passing this reauthorization. I hope to work with Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and my colleagues on the Indian Affairs and Finance Committees to seeing this through and getting a bill signed into law.

However, I want to also urge my colleagues to remember that our trust responsibility does not end with reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It continues as we craft a budget for the coming fiscal year and make the appropriations for the Indian Health Service. The programs we are about to reauthorize are useless if we don't make gains in the

paltry amount of funds for health services, urban Indian health, and facilities construction. As my colleagues know, the Indian Health Service is only funded at 60 percent of estimated need.

Today's actions should be the beginning of a renewed commitment to our first Americans. I look forward to starting a new chapter in our relationship with Indian Country.

I rise today to express concerns about the FISA Amendments Act S. 2248 before us. This morning, the Senate lost an opportunity to strengthen this bill. And, unfortunately, without those critical provisions, I will have to oppose the bill before us. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership in fighting against this bill. I know he will be back on this issue at every opportunity.

Mr. President, I rise to join this debate. I have been, over many years, interested and involved in privacy rights issues in a variety of capacities. Certainly, the residents of my state care passionately about their rights to privacy.

This administration has done a lot to blur the line between foreign intelligence gathering and spying on U.S. citizens. Now, the legislation before us today could have been improved to better protect the rights of U.S. citizens by passing amendments proposed by my colleague Senator Feingold, but we turned those down.

Instead what has been a delicate balance in the United States to protect the rights of privacy of U.S. citizens and national security is going to be further eroded.

Congress has limited powers and so does the President. The President does not and should not have unchecked power in this or any other area. It would be contrary to our American values and our system of government, which has endured for more than 231 years.

When strengthening national security, we must also safeguard civil liberties and the privacy rights of American citizens. I cannot support a bill that fails to strike this critical balance, as the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did. We didn't allow the government to have unchecked unlimited authority then, and we shouldn't allow it now. There have been times in the past when both Democratic and Republican administrations lost sight of the need to protect U.S. citizens' privacy rights.

We all want to protect the United States, but how good is this approach if the end result is that everyone thinks that there is a back door to our computer operating systems, a back door to our telecommunication systems? Who will want to do business in the United States if they think there are no secure systems, only systems to which the U.S. government will have access? Communications over the Internet, regardless of country of origin or country of destination, know no national boundaries, and travel by the most efficient route. If the Act as currently drafted goes forward, it may lead to an international reexamination of how the Internet should operate. FISA has been a very important part of our checks and balances.

In our country, a Senator cannot pick or choose what laws they follow and neither should the President nor telecommunication companies. Congress should not be providing blanket immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Administration's warrantless wiretapping programs. We don't know precisely what those companies did or the full extent of what they did.

I believe the Federal courts should be allowed to rule on the legality of the companies' conduct. Congress should not move to preempt judicial decisions. Special procedures can be put in place that could allow such cases to move ahead without revealing classified information or damaging U.S. national security. Specifically, I want to touch on the lawsuit the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed against a large telecom company, accusing it of violating FISA, on behalf of a class of its customers. If retroactive immunity is granted to telecom providers, the lawsuit will be dismissed, and the public will never get an opportunity of getting even a glimpse of what happened.

The issue of the Federal Government and telecoms possibly violating FISA came to light in part as a result of the actions of a brave whistleblower. According to media reports and internal AT&T documents provided by this whistleblower, Mark Klein, the telecom company allegedly splits off a copy of all of the Internet traffic transported over fiber-optic cables running though its San Francisco office and diverts it all--e-mails, IMs, web browsing, everything--to a secure room under the control of the National Security Agency that contains sophisticated data-mining equipment capable of monitoring all the communications' content in real-time. What appears to have happened is a major change in how electronic surveillance is conducted in this country. Surveillance used to be particularized--investigators would pick a target and then intercept the communications of that target. But now, it appears the Administration is using advances in technology to move to a wholesale surveillance regime, where everything is intercepted and then investigators sift through the hay to pick their targets. In other words, the Administration is seizing millions of Americans' communications--billions of phone calls and e-mails and more--in a 21st century high-tech equivalent of the King's general warrants that our Founders fought a revolution to avoid.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation wants a court to be able to decide whether this new mode of surveillance is or can ever be legal, under FISA or the fourth amendment. Letting the courts decide that question is critical to checks and balances, critical to ensuring that Congress' privacy laws are followed and the fourth amendment respected, and critical to preventing abuses of power. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to allow this case to move forward. I urge them to allow the Federal courts to rule on the legality of the companies' conduct. These are the issues, I believe, that must be reviewed by the courts. I think passing this legislation really preempts what is critical judicial review and undermines the fundamental principle of checks and balances in our system.

I know these are challenging times. But we have to remember our Constitution and to remember what is effective policy. Everybody in America wants to be safer and we want to use technology to protect our national security. But, technology can be used in a way that protects privacy rights. This all goes back to checks and balances. Instead of rushing to dismantle them, Congress needs to maintain and strengthen these checks and balances in order to prevent abuses of power. This model has worked for our country.

I encourage my colleagues to make sure we remember the fourth amendment and we remember our citizens' rights to privacy as well in considering this legislation, which I hope the Senate will turn down this afternoon.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act, together with Senator Murray. This bill would transfer an acre and a half of Forest Service land to the King and Kittitas Counties Fire District No. 51, also known as Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue. This land would be conveyed at no cost, but would have to be used by the Fire District specifically for the construction of a new fire station or it would revert back to the Federal Government.

Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue 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. Mr. Presdient, 84

percent of those incidents are for non-tax 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.

I recognize that the Forest Service does not normally support conveyances of land free of charge. However, I believe an exception should be made in this particular circumstance because of the important public service provided by the Fire District, the heavy traffic and emergency calls created by nonresidents in the area, the distance of Snoqualmie Pass from other communities with emergency services, and because of the high amount of federal land ownership in the area, which severely limits the local tax base. In fact, the Forest Service has acquired 20,000 acres in King and Kittitas counties at a cost of more than $52 million over just the last 10 years.

Passage of this legislation would not guarantee that a new station would be built. The Fire District would have to work hard to gather the financing that would be required from State and local sources, as well as any applicable Federal grants or loans. However, the conveyance of this site at no cost would help this Fire District hold down the overall cost of this project.

I am confident this can be done with little or no impact to the environment. Over the last year, following the introduction of this legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1285, there were ongoing discussions in Washington State to address some lingering issues related to this conveyance. I am pleased those discussions reached resolution. I am also pleased that discussions with my staff, Senator Murray's staff, and staff of Energy and Natural Resources Committee led to an amendment to H.R. 1285 before it passed the House of Representatives that would better tailor the conveyance to both the environmental and the emergency response needs at the Pass by reducing the amount of land to be conveyed from 3 acres to 1.5 acres.

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. To offset any potential impacts from construction of a new fire station and to improve wildlife connectivity at the pass, I encourage the Forest Service to work in collaboration with state and local officials, the Cascade Land Conservancy, Snoqualmie Fire District, Sierra Club, and Conservation Northwest to identify opportunities for off-site habitat acquisition.

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.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act, together with Senator Murray. This bill would transfer an acre and a half of Forest Service land to the King and Kittitas Counties Fire District No. 51, also known as Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue. This land would be conveyed at no cost, but would have to be used by the Fire District specifically for the construction of a new fire station or it would revert back to the Federal Government.

Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue 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. Mr. Presdient, 84

percent of those incidents are for non-tax 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.

I recognize that the Forest Service does not normally support conveyances of land free of charge. However, I believe an exception should be made in this particular circumstance because of the important public service provided by the Fire District, the heavy traffic and emergency calls created by nonresidents in the area, the distance of Snoqualmie Pass from other communities with emergency services, and because of the high amount of federal land ownership in the area, which severely limits the local tax base. In fact, the Forest Service has acquired 20,000 acres in King and Kittitas counties at a cost of more than $52 million over just the last 10 years.

Passage of this legislation would not guarantee that a new station would be built. The Fire District would have to work hard to gather the financing that would be required from State and local sources, as well as any applicable Federal grants or loans. However, the conveyance of this site at no cost would help this Fire District hold down the overall cost of this project.

I am confident this can be done with little or no impact to the environment. Over the last year, following the introduction of this legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1285, there were ongoing discussions in Washington State to address some lingering issues related to this conveyance. I am pleased those discussions reached resolution. I am also pleased that discussions with my staff, Senator Murray's staff, and staff of Energy and Natural Resources Committee led to an amendment to H.R. 1285 before it passed the House of Representatives that would better tailor the conveyance to both the environmental and the emergency response needs at the Pass by reducing the amount of land to be conveyed from 3 acres to 1.5 acres.

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. To offset any potential impacts from construction of a new fire station and to improve wildlife connectivity at the pass, I encourage the Forest Service to work in collaboration with state and local officials, the Cascade Land Conservancy, Snoqualmie Fire District, Sierra Club, and Conservation Northwest to identify opportunities for off-site habitat acquisition.

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.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes and that the time not be counted against the debate on the FISA legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about clean energy production tax credits, investment tax credits, and the energy efficiency provisions in the pending stimulus package, which I think are critical to restoring economic growth in America and continuing what is a burgeoning industry that is helping us create jobs and economic stimulus across our country. We are talking about tax credits that are a proven stimulus and business investment. They give consumers, in this case, energy efficiency credits of up to $500 to make energy efficiency improvements to their homes, which could save homeowners as much as $800 per year in avoided energy costs. We are talking about $20 billion of stimulus and 116,000 jobs that could be impacted.

The bottom line is the renewable energy industry generated over $40 billion of revenue in 2006 and accounted for 450,000 direct and indirect jobs last year. So we know that clean energy is one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy. But by failing to act when we didn't pass these critical tax incentives last year, we caused turbulence in what is a very new and growing industry. And if the Senate rejects these incentives now, we could put this industry in a tailspin by not giving them predictability on their tax credits. That is why it is so important we pass the stimulus package tomorrow.

Let's talk about what we are hearing from some of those in the industry who know this sector very well. The Alliance to Save Energy, a group of business, government, and consumer leaders, committed to seeing this country take advantage of cost savings from efficiency have said:

Energy efficiency tax incentives put money into the economy

by encouraging the purchase of energy efficient products and

services.

This group has representatives of this body as part of that alliance. Their job is to advocate for policies to help this industry grow. What are we hearing from particular industries? I like this chart particularly because so many of my colleagues--I do it, and so many on the other side, and even the President of the United States speaks at these various clean energy industry plant sites and advocate and are excited about the jobs they create. But sometimes it stops there and after the ribbon cutting they fail to support the necessary policies. That is why recently a particular solar company CEO made this statement:

The Senate can ensure that we keep the economic engine

moving forward and extend the solar tax credits as part of

the economic stimulus bill.

That is directly from the solar industry that we politicians like to stand in front of and talk about jobs being created. Here is somebody who was the prop behind one of these events in the last week, and they are telling us to pass this tax credit in the stimulus package.

What are we hearing from a consortium of those in the industry? We are hearing from one consolidated report of the renewable industry that said:

Over 116,000 U.S. jobs, and nearly $19 billion--

This is just on solar, wind, and other renewable electricity sources--

nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment could be lost in one

year if renewable energy tax credits are not renewed by

Congress.

That report came out earlier this week.

The reason why people are so concerned about this is because what we have seen traditionally--and we can see on this chart that in 2000, 2002, and 2004 where we did not give predictability to this industry by saying we are going to continue the tax credit policy--what happened is a 93-percent drop in investment; in 2000. In 2002, a 73-percent drop in investment; and again in 2003, another 77-percent drop in investment.

Here is where this industry is now in 2007. It is a growing industry. As I said, in 2006, it was $40 billion in revenue and over 450,000 direct and indirect jobs. And we are about to kill this level of investment and put it into a tailspin by not continuing this tax policy.

In fact, that is exactly what this solar industry CEO, who had the pleasure of standing there with Governor Schwarzenegger and others, said. He said Federal tax credits for solar energy are about to expire. They are about to expire and it will send the solar industry into a tailspin.

It doesn't have to get any clearer than that: CEOs of companies that are the backdrop of great press events telling us we are about to send their industries into a tailspin. I suggest we instead pass these tax incentives and get

on with what could be certainty in tax policy.

What I like about wind is the fact that it is happening in lots of places across this country, but it is also giving farmers a second crop. Almost 200 members of the American Wind Energy Association have sent us a letter saying that ``companies in our industry are already reporting a decrease in investment as a result of the uncertainty surrounding tax policy.'' They are saying they are already seeing people starting to cancel projects.

We want to help our economy grow, and there is stimulus in these tax incentives, but I ask my colleagues to consider what is going to happen when they do not renew them. They are actually going to cause more damage to the economy because people are going to start canceling projects.

Let me explain. This same report by Navigant came out earlier this week and got very specific as to which States had significant investment by renewable companies and exactly what was going to happen both in the loss of opportunity for new jobs and in actually having jobs cut when there is not predictability.

Texas, one of the biggest investors from a wind production side, could lose a future opportunity and existing jobs of upwards of 23,000; Colorado, 10,000; Illinois, 8,000; Oregon, 7,000; Minnesota, 6,000 plus; Washington State, nearly 5,000 jobs are at stake. The list goes on to other States that have made incredible progress in renewable energies that are creating jobs, and all these jobs are at stake for the future and some of them represent jobs where people are getting a paycheck today. Instead, they will take our rebate check, if we pass the House bill, and they will receive a pink slip because their jobs are not going to be there anymore. That is why we have to pass this package.

In fact, I want to give examples of two specifics where people will actually lose jobs.

Noble Environmental Power is developing projects for wind in New York and Texas, and they plan to construct two parks in New York State and two in Texas. If the production tax credit is not extended, these projects will not be built which will eliminate 1,200 full-time construction jobs. That is 600 jobs in each State.

In addition, the company in its head count will be cut from 220 to 120 because they will also cut other jobs related to planning. In fact, if we do not give them this predictability this year, in 2008, $200 million in orders for equipment will be canceled. That is stimulus, $20 million that will not be made because they do not have certainty and they are going to cancel their plans for equipment.

Additionally, $18 million in engineering services are going to be canceled because they do not have predictability in this Tax Code.

Again, if the production tax credit is not extended, 600 full-time construction jobs will be eliminated in each State, New York and Texas.

Another example. Safeway, which is a major grocery store chain, is planning on retrofitting additional stores with solar panels. Why are they doing that? Because they know they can get offset rising energy costs out of those solar panels. They are looking at 15 additional stores with solar panels and injecting an additional $30 million into the economy if the solar investment credit is extended. If it is not extended, these jobs are going to be in jeopardy.

Here are companies trying to help us stimulate the economy, create jobs, lower energy costs, and I am sure that helps with the bottom line of food costs in America, and yet we are not giving them predictability.

We also saw in my home State of Washington a company, Wellons, a leader in wood-fired energy systems, say they are going to mothball up to 20 projects unless they get the production tax credit. That means that some of the 500 people in this particular company will be laid off.

I think the Arizona Republic said it best. In fact, they had an editorial this week that said:

The economic stimulus package from Congress . . . should

include an extension of tax credits for renewable energy

sources. For Arizona--

And I think this is similar for many other States, but Arizona is a leader in this area--

the continued development of our solar industry is at

stake.

That is why we need these credits. We had today the Los Angeles Times say:

Investors won't pump money into clean power if there is a

danger of losing their tax incentives . . . green technology

is an extremely promising growth industry that could help

make up for the loss of manufacturing jobs.

That is another editorial from today.

We know this, and yet we somehow want to pretend that the elimination of these tax credits does not matter. I know it matters to Governors because we have heard from the Governors of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin:

We know that uncertainty of the future of a wind production

tax credit must be avoided if this burgeoning industry is

going to thrive in the years ahead.

So we are hearing from our Governors who are on the ground wanting to approve these projects knowing how much they mean to their local economies, and yet we are ignoring that.

We also heard from a growing industry partner, the American Corn Growers Association. They said:

If President Bush will agree with the inclusion of the

production tax credit in the stimulus package, he will be

adding numerous jobs to our economy.

Why is that? Because this industry sees that this is a good partner. It is actually helping them with additional revenue, and it is helping those Midwest economies continue to grow.

What about the National Farmers Union, another organization, which said:

Encourage your support including important renewable energy

tax incentives in the economic stimulus package currently

being considered by Congress.

The Farmers Union obviously knows this means jobs in their local economy. But for them, it also means that instead of paying the high prices of natural gas and not having any product compete with it, that having renewable energy generate an additional 6,000 megawatts of power can actually get alternative sources of electricity in the market and lower the demand on natural gas and thereby lowering the price. That helps lower the cost of fertilizer. It is critically important.

This past week, we had 41 Senators sign a letter, including 14 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who agree that:

Extending these expiring clean energy tax credits will help

ensure a stronger, more stable environment for new

investments and ensure continued robust growth in a bright

spot in an otherwise slowing economy.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter of bipartisan support.

Mr. President, we also received letters from 13 different organizations that also support the inclusion of these provisions in the tax package.

This is truly an opportunity for us to continue to stimulate the economy in a key growth area, but my colleagues should not be fooled. This is probably the only opportunity to do extend these credits before they expire. We have had a dispute between the House and the White House and Members of the Senate about how to move forward on these tax credits. Some want them paid for while taking money from oil revenues. Others, such as the White House, don't want them paid for at all.

This is an opportunity for us if we are going to do $150 billion worth of investment in what we think is an economic opportunity to get one of the best returns on investment in this stimulus package; that is, to invest about $5 billion and see over $20 billion in new energy investment in this country.

I hope my colleagues will consider this tomorrow and consider how much we truly need these budding clean energy industries to grow and thrive in our home States. Anyone who supports this industry has to vote for the Senate Finance bill or we could very well miss a key opportunity to stimulate our economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about our need to move swiftly on the stimulus package. We are responding obviously to a bipartisan package that has come out of the Finance Committee. I believe we should work on a bipartisan basis, because we are in tough economic times, to hurry and get this package done. Doing the right thing means doing the right thing for seniors, for disabled veterans, for consumers, for business. It means getting real dollars pumped back into the economy now and not continuing to play a time-consuming game, going back and forth.

I know the House and the administration rapidly put together a package and it garnered wide bipartisan support, and I applaud their efforts for doing that. Likewise, Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley also initiated quick, bipartisan action in the Senate Finance Committee, and the bill was reported out, and Senator Reid has brought that bill before the full Senate. I urge my colleagues to keep pace with the President's request for timely action and to support sending the Finance Committee bill to the House so we can quickly move to conference and resolve whatever differences there are, so we can move a package to the President's desk we can be proud of.

Our goal is to act on policies that will stimulate the economy now and over the next 12 months. We should not lose sight of that goal. I know many of my colleagues like to talk about other proposals that may be stimulative in the long run, but for me the focus should be--and I think for my colleagues--on that which is truly going to be stimulative over the next 12 months.

The Finance Committee package makes significant improvements to the House bill. I think they are important aspects that strengthen our efforts on stimulus. The Finance Committee bill makes sure that 20 million low-income seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans are eligible for a stimulus rebate--a critical aspect to correct. Now I don't think the House of Representatives intended to leave these folks behind, and I think we can simply send a message to the House and the President that we know they support including these individuals as well.

By making sure that seniors qualify for these payments, in my State, over 800,000 Washingtonians will be helped, and over 93,000 disabled veterans and their families. So we are talking about a large percentage of the population. These people live on fixed incomes, and it is essential we provide them the economic assistance they deserve. I do want to congratulate Senators Lincoln and Snowe for highlighting the fact that the House bill failed to help these individuals--disabled veterans--and worked to correct this in the Finance Committee package.

The Finance Committee package also improves upon the House bill by including a modest temporary extension of the stimulative energy tax credit and investment provisions. Some may ask: Are these energy provisions stimulative? Let me respond clearly: Extending these provisions is critical to the prevention of billions of dollars of investment loss and thousands of jobs lost in 2008. We need to act quickly or we are going to not only lose out on a positive economic stimulus that can be upwards of $20 billion, but people will start cancelling projects that are in critical areas of investment simply because we have not given them the predictability of the Tax Code.

This bill includes a 1-year extension of expiring clean energy and efficiency tax credits that will help consumers and businesses make stimulative investment decisions in 2008, and it happens to address one of the most pressing needs--energy costs--that are causing impact to our economy today. Extending this package of incentives now will enable companies to go forward with more renewable investments in wind and solar which are currently on hold now because they are waiting for the certainty of the Tax Code.

I wish to show my colleagues an example of what uncertainty does for our investment. Historically, the production tax credits have been renewed at various points in time. When Congress has failed to give predictability--and this chart shows the megawatt production, the years we failed to provide certainty--we actually saw a 93-percent drop in 2000. In 2001 when we failed to get certainty again, we saw a 73- percent drop in production, and in 2004 we saw a 77-percent drop in production again. What this chart shows us is that in 2007, we are off to a great year as it relates to production, and the production tax credit and the alternative energy that we are producing.

As I said, 2000 shows almost $20 billion in stimulation to our economy by our investment in energy. That helps us lower energy costs and certainly puts more production into the mix. But if we fail to give the businesses the predictability we are going to extend these tax credits, those investments aren't going to be made.

The American Wind Energy Association estimates that the extension of the production tax credit will enable $7 billion in capital spending to go forward over the next 12 months, thanks to projects and contracts that will be executed as planned rather than delayed because of uncertainty of the place-in-service date. That is, by saying the projects have to be in place by the end of this year does not give them the predictability of continuing to make the investment. We have been told by just one appliance manufacturer that they will not give the go- ahead on $30 million in investment in 2008 to put new energy efficiency appliances into production unless the tax credit is extended. That production line won't be cost-effective without it. That is what they tell us.

Also, the extension of the investment tax credit for solar, for example, means that one large grocery store chain in the United States would--if they got the credit--inject an additional $30 million into the economy by following through on their plan to retrofit more stores with solar panels in 2008. Each solar conversion of those stores puts $2 million into the economy, into manufacturing and installation of those solar panels. The Federal investment credit is key to whether they move forward with their investment, or whether they stop or slow down. Overall, the solar industry estimates that up to 40,000 new jobs will be lost in the next 12 months if we don't extend the investment credit. At this time in our economy, why should we be sacrificing high- quality jobs because we aren't giving certainty predictability?

Let me give an example. In my own State, someone called our office today who is the president of Wellons, Inc., in Vancouver, WA. For more than 40 years Wellons has been a leader in providing wood-fired energy systems, lumber-dried kilns, and related products to the forest industry. Wellons has four to six projects and maybe many more that are ready to go, and yet a key to all these projects moving forward is certainty about the production tax credit. If the production tax credits aren't extended, these projects can't go forward, and as the president of that organization told my office:

Every project I have hinges on the production tax credit.

If they aren't extended, we will start having to lay off some

of the 500 employees in the company.

So we have to act quickly. There are many other States that will be impacted besides mine. A report that was released today by Navigant Consulting found that over 100,000 jobs are at risk. In fact, their report shows State by State that due to a lack of production tax credit--Texas, for example, 23,000 jobs could be at stake; Colorado, 10,000 jobs; Illinois, 8,000--and I am not giving the exact number here; I am rounding them up or down--Oregon, 7,000 jobs; Minnesota, 6,000; my home State of Washington, 4,744; and the list goes on. Iowa, North Dakota, Oklahoma; Pennsylvania will lose 1,500 plus jobs; California, nearly 1,000 jobs; Missouri, nearly 1,000 jobs, and on and down the list.

So the question is whether we are going to act to pass what is a bipartisan Senate bill that improves on the House package--it improves on the House package including seniors, including disabled veterans, in making sure we are clear about who--in fact, that legal citizens get access to these rebate checks, and to make sure we are truly making the best decision about stimulative investment.

Now, I wish that last year we could have had some of these things pass and having some clarity. But it is clear that the House of Representatives and the White House see this differently. So it is very important that we take the opportunity now to get this investment strategy right. Doing these tax credits at the end of this year is not sufficient to keeping investment. If we don't, 2008 is going to look more like 2004. That is that in 2008, people will cancel projects, stop production, we won't have the energy produced in the marketplace.

This is a large opportunity for us. It is a large opportunity to give businesses--and I should say it also gives consumers--an opportunity to get about $500 from a tax rebate for their consumer energy investments into products that will help them keep their energy costs down, and the estimates are that individual consumers, besides the $500 rebate they will get, will probably save between $600 and $800 on energy savings. Those are the kinds of things we want to do. We want to see 2008 look even more aggressive from a stimulative perspective than 2007. We want people to be aggressive in this area because not only will it create jobs, not only will it create economic stimulus now, but it will help consumers on the key impact they are feeling in this economic hardship of high energy costs. The more production you get into place, that production helps us in lowering energy costs. Getting more alternative energy production helps us in impacting the cost of natural gas, because you have an alternative product in the marketplace. It helps us in getting other supply. It certainly is supply that is there for the long run. I don't think anybody thinks we are ever going to change the direction we are currently seeing on high energy costs, so getting the long-term production in place is also a good idea.

But I urge my colleagues to think clearly about this choice we are going to have; that is, to improve upon the, I am sure, unintended consequences the House had in their package by clarifying that seniors and veterans deserve to have these benefits, and that these production tax credits and investments are smart investments to give business predictability and will be stimulative to our economy. Certainly by ignoring that, we are at peril of making our problems worse. So I encourage my colleagues to support this Finance Committee package that has come out in a bipartisan way and move quickly with the House to resolve these issues. It is

the quickest path forward to getting a bill to the President and getting checks into consumers' hands.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as my colleagues are trying to sort out issues related to scheduling votes, and I certainly do care about the pending issue and making sure that we come to a resolution that will protect a variety of interests, I rise now to speak specifically about the economic stimulus package which the Senate is going to take up next week.

We all know there has been a downturn in the economy caused by persistent high energy costs and an ongoing mortgage crisis, and we know we are seeing damages to both individual households and to businesses. We know that layoffs are accelerating, gas and home heating prices are skyrocketing, making us face some of the biggest economic challenges we have seen in years. So I think it is very important, Mr. President, that we continue on this rapid pace to get a stimulus package. And that is the good news; that in a bipartisan effort we have been working diligently along with the White House to immediately get some stimulus into the economy and help working people and businesses that are struggling.

I think our goal should be that we identify measures that are timely, targeted, and, when possible, address the underlying causes of our economic problems--that is getting money in people's pockets, I believe, must be a key component of this package. I have been following what the other side of the Capitol has been doing, the House of Representatives is working on a formidable package, and I know we are discussing a variety of issues here. But I believe any package should take the opportunity to invest in critical business stimulus measures that can alleviate some of the underlying problems that are causing Americans economic heartburn.

We are seeing oil prices in recent weeks hovering around $100 a barrel and natural gas prices remaining at exceedingly historic highs, which I think is adding great impact to what Americans are doing in trying to deal with this economy. In fact, a Los Angeles Times article in December cited economists' fear that high energy costs could ignite inflation. This would just aggravate our economic problems further.

High energy costs make it much more difficult for our manufacturing and agricultural sectors to make ends meet. Today the National Farmers Union came out in favor of a proposal that I think we should put into our stimulus package, and one that I am about to describe. It is an opportunity to include in the stimulus package incentives that both dramatically boost economic activity in 2008 and take an important step toward reducing energy costs.

I believe we should consider an extension of the clean energy tax incentives in the stimulus package. They meet the definition of short- term stimulus, targeted and timely. They have the benefit of getting immediate short-term results--that is, significant economic activity and new jobs in 2008. And they also result in long-term benefits which will help us deal with the underlying problem that is causing so much havoc with our economy, and that is high energy costs.

Mr. President, the American Wind Energy Association estimates that extending the production tax credit will result in as many as 75,000 new jobs in 2008 and $7 billion of capital spending over the next 12 months. All by Congress making the right decisions about tax incentives for the wind industry.

I think that would be a big boost to our economy. Wind generation alone has accounted for over 30 percent of our new generation placed in service last year. This industry is well beyond what some might consider a pilot phase and has significant sources of job diversity for the United States.

Likewise, the solar industry estimates that up to 40,000 new jobs could actually be lost in the next 12 months if we do not extend the investment tax credit. That is right; not only do those tax credits add stimulus to the economy, we should understand that by not doing them, by not passing them, we are actually taking away economic opportunity and investment plans that people would be making this year.

Included in this package are also four energy efficiency incentives for consumers. As a Deutsche Bank report released last November said:

Gains in efficiency will have the effect of muting the

effect of expensive oil.

If we want to get consumers to go shopping, why not encourage them to buy items that will reduce their energy costs? Everybody wins when this happens. Consumers get lower bills, retailers get more economic activity, and it reduces the upward pressure on prices by mitigating demand. All of which helps the overall economy rebound faster.

This is the kind of economic stimulus we need. It helps with jobs, it helps diversify the energy industry. The clean energy industry is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise slumping economy. Unless those incentives are extended in this quarter, we are taking a risk at an even steeper downturn in an industry that saw remarkable results in 2007.

Mr. President, that's why we need to make sure we extend these critical clean energy tax incentives. I will remind my colleagues that the three times Congress let the clean energy tax incentives lapse, the wind industry saw a 75- to 93-percent decline the following year, because we were not giving them the predictability in tax incentives. So while I am very happy to make sure the public is getting the incentives in the form of rebate checks, I also want to say to my constituents that we are also putting a variety of solutions on the table, that we are trying to deal with problems that will help them not just in the near term, but also to solve the underlying problem of high energy costs that is a drag on our economy.

I know some of my colleagues will probably talk about lots of different ways we can stimulate infrastructure development, but I will say that this is about a business tax investment strategy. These clean energy incentives will stimulate billions of dollars of capital outlay now in the next 12 months, and be a huge source of new job creation.

An immediate cash infusion into the economy is necessary, but we should not lose sight of the fact that this has the additional benefit of helping us with our long-term problem.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on an extension of these clean energy incentives as part of the stimulus package, and to demonstrate the leadership and foresight that we have here in the Senate to make the right decisions about a package that will simultaneously provide us near term economic boost, prevent job loss, and help solve high energy costs.

Mr. President, the explanatory statement to accompany H.R. 2764, which includes the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008, inadvertently omitted the following items for which I had made a request to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Subcommittee and for which I had submitted the appropriate letter of pecuniary interest. Those items are: under the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Special Research Grants account, the Pacific Northwest Small Fruit Research Center for Idaho, Oregon and Washington, operated in cooperation with Washington State University, which was awarded $329,000; under the Agriculture Research Service Salaries & Expenses account, the Potato Research Enhancement Project in Prosser, WA, co- located with the Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center of Washington State University, which was awarded $288,000 and under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service account, the Washington Clean Plant Network which was awarded $225,000. All three of these projects are essential to the ongoing development of my home state's vital agriculture industry. I thank Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Bennett for their work to correct the record with respect to these three projects.

Mr. President, I will support the Senate moving forward on the confirmation of Jon Wellinghoff and Joe Kelliher to be members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. While I am pleased that FERC has been using its expanded authority granted by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to pursue manipulation in the electricity and natural gas markets, I think it is critically important to remind FERC of its statutory duty to oversee the energy markets and protect consumers.

In light of evidence of market manipulation in the Western electricity crisis in 2001, I fought hard to ban market manipulation in electricity and natural gas markets. My amendment, adopted by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, provided FERC new authority under the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act to investigate and punish market manipulation in electricity and natural gas markets.

I am pleased to see that FERC has used this expanded authority to conduct 64 investigations. According to FERC, 13 of these investigations have resulted in settlements involving the payment of civil penalties or other monetary remedies totaling over $40 million. Two investigations have resulted in FERC bringing enforcement actions for alleged market manipulation against Amaranth Advisors LLC for $291 million in civil penalties and Energy Trading Partners for $167 million in civil penalties. Amaranth's shenanigans cost consumers upwards of $9 billion dollars during the summer of 2006.

However, I want to remind FERC of its responsibilities relating to protecting consumers under the Federal Power Act's statutory ``just and reasonable'' standard. In section 1290 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which I authored, Congress directed FERC to exercise its Federal Power Act authority to enforce ``just and reasonable'' rates when it reviewed the validity of termination payment claims made by Enron during the Western energy crisis of 2000-2001.

After entering into power contracts in a market that Enron manipulated, several utilities, including the Snohomish Public Utility District in my State, the Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company in Nevada, terminated their contracts with Enron or watched as Enron terminated them when the company's web of fraudulent accounting was revealed in late 2001. As a result, Enron tried to squeeze hundreds of millions of dollars of termination fee payments from the electricity consumers of these utilities. In my opinion, these payments demanded by Enron were certainly neither just nor reasonable.

After enactment of the Cantwell amendment, the Snohomish Public Utility District in my State and several other entities including the Nevada Power Company, asked FERC to exercise its Federal Power Act authority, which includes enforcing ``just and reasonable'' rates, and deny Enron the ability to charge the fraudulent termination payments.

Using the force of the Cantwell amendment, these Washington State and Nevada utilities were able to avoid protracted litigation and settle Enron's absurd termination fee claims, saving these utilities from paying hundreds of millions in unjust payments on contracts that Enron fraudulently induced. This has helped save electricity consumers of Washington and Nevada hundreds of millions of dollars.

This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court will review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which declared that FERC failed to use its authority under the Federal Power Act to enforce ``just and reasonable'' rates. In a brief to the Supreme Court in this matter, FERC recently took the position that it was free to approve long-term contracts arising out of the 2000-2001 Western power crisis notwithstanding evidence that, in the words of Stanford University energy economist Dr. Frank Wolak, suppliers to the Western markets during this period were ``able to exercise market power at unprecedented levels'' resulting in ``prices vastly in excess of competitive levels.''

As the Ninth Circuit's opinion makes clear, if FERC adopts market- based rates, it has an obligation to ensure that the markets operate properly and it cannot simply assume that a contract is just and reasonable even if the contract is the product of a manipulated market, such as the experienced in the West during 2000-2001.

It is troublesome that FERC continues to argue that it is free to ignore evidence of market manipulation and market power abuse when reviewing contracts affected by that abuse. Moreover, this position is inconsistent with its recent emphasis on enforcement of market standards. FERC's position in the Supreme Court essentially could allow market abusers to protect their ill-gotten gains by locking them up in contracts, undermining any incentive they might otherwise have to obey market rules and report abuses by other market participants.

While I am pleased that Commissioner Wellinghoff's response to my

questions indicates that he does not agree with FERC's brief in this matter, I will continue to watch FERC very closely as this case moves forward. FERC is the sole forum to bring complaints of market power abuse and manipulation in electricity and natural gas, markets, and I fully expect FERC to not abrogate its Federal Power Act responsibilities to protect consumers and enforce ``just and reasonable'' rates.

Mr. President, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the air travel industry has suffered tremendous economic hardship. In particular, airline workers have been forced to take cuts in pay and benefits which have dramatically reduced their financial security now and in their retirement years.

Airline pilots and other union airline employees have lost in excess of $30 billion in pay and over $7 billion in defined benefit pension benefits. In addition, many airline workers have lost their jobs. For example, on September 11, 2001, there were 10,500 active Delta pilots. Today, there are 6,700.

Since the attacks, many of our Nation's airlines were forced to file for bankruptcy--and terminate or freeze their defined benefit pension plans. The largest of these airline bankruptcies involved United Airlines, U.S. Airways, Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines. In all of these bankruptcies, a huge share of the cost savings was borne by the airline employees, who suffered massive cuts in pay and benefits.

In 2001, Congressional relief focused on the airline carriers, offering loan packages and other economic relief. In 2004 and 2006, Congress provided additional assistance to those airline carriers that were able to avoid termination of their defined benefit plans. However, past Congressional actions will never restore the lost retirement benefits for those airline workers whose defined benefit plans were terminated or frozen.

This is an important point to emphasize. The actions already taken by the Congress to provide economic relief to the airlines and to reduce their future pension contributions for the continuing plans do not restore benefits to those airline workers who lost pension benefits in plans that were terminated or frozen.

Therefore, I rise to introduce the Lost Retirement Savings Act of 2007 to provide for a retirement savings option to those airline workers whose defined benefit plans were terminated or frozen in bankruptcy proceedings.

Under the bill, these airline workers would benefit to the extent that they would individually choose to rollover specified bankruptcy payments into a traditional or Roth individual retirement account. The intent is to provide this retirement savings opportunity only to those airline employees for whom the bankruptcies imposed an economic burden through the substantial loss of wages and retirement benefits.

In closing, I urge my Senate colleagues to take a close look at this bill and join me in passing this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the air travel industry has suffered tremendous economic hardship. In particular, airline workers have been forced to take cuts in pay and benefits which have dramatically reduced their financial security now and in their retirement years.

Airline pilots and other union airline employees have lost in excess of $30 billion in pay and over $7 billion in defined benefit pension benefits. In addition, many airline workers have lost their jobs. For example, on September 11, 2001, there were 10,500 active Delta pilots. Today, there are 6,700.

Since the attacks, many of our Nation's airlines were forced to file for bankruptcy--and terminate or freeze their defined benefit pension plans. The largest of these airline bankruptcies involved United Airlines, U.S. Airways, Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines. In all of these bankruptcies, a huge share of the cost savings was borne by the airline employees, who suffered massive cuts in pay and benefits.

In 2001, Congressional relief focused on the airline carriers, offering loan packages and other economic relief. In 2004 and 2006, Congress provided additional assistance to those airline carriers that were able to avoid termination of their defined benefit plans. However, past Congressional actions will never restore the lost retirement benefits for those airline workers whose defined benefit plans were terminated or frozen.

This is an important point to emphasize. The actions already taken by the Congress to provide economic relief to the airlines and to reduce their future pension contributions for the continuing plans do not restore benefits to those airline workers who lost pension benefits in plans that were terminated or frozen.

Therefore, I rise to introduce the Lost Retirement Savings Act of 2007 to provide for a retirement savings option to those airline workers whose defined benefit plans were terminated or frozen in bankruptcy proceedings.

Under the bill, these airline workers would benefit to the extent that they would individually choose to rollover specified bankruptcy payments into a traditional or Roth individual retirement account. The intent is to provide this retirement savings opportunity only to those airline employees for whom the bankruptcies imposed an economic burden through the substantial loss of wages and retirement benefits.

In closing, I urge my Senate colleagues to take a close look at this bill and join me in passing this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I would like to take a few minutes to speak about a piece of legislation essential to Washington State and its agricultural community--the 2007 farm bill. This bill is the result of an incredible amount of hard work by many different people. In particular, I

would like to extend my gratitude to the Senate Agriculture Committee chair, Tom Harkin, and ranking member Saxby Chambliss and their staff for the strong, bipartisan bill passed out of committee and to Senator Debbie Stabenow and her staff for their tireless work on behalf of this Nation's fruit and vegetable growers. These individuals, along with many others, have created a carefully crafted compromise, resulting in the best farm bill in Washington State history.

Washington is blessed with a wide and diverse agricultural economy. We lead the Nation in the production of 14 agricultural crops, including red raspberries, apples, hops, sweet cherries, pears, and concord grapes. We rank second nationwide in the production of asparagus, third in the production of dry peas and lentils, and fourth in the production of wheat and barley. Washington's dairy industry makes up over 14 percent of our agricultural economy, and we are second nationwide in the export of fruits and vegetables. Washington's agricultural products are pivotal to the Nation and the agriculture industry is pivotal to Washington. From provisions dealing with specialty crops to dairy to commodities and pulse crops, all of this farm bill has a direct impact on my State and the many hard-working farmers and producers living in it.

I was very pleased to work with Senator Baucus and others on the Finance Committee to authorize the agriculture disaster relief trust fund. The trust fund is a historic attempt to deal with agricultural disasters in a logical and deliberate manner before they happen, as opposed to cobbling together ad hoc relief after disaster strikes. I am particularly pleased with the focus on pest and disease management for our specialty crop growers. The fund also includes mandatory funding for the Tree Assistance Program--a program that helps growers replace the trees upon which their crop is grown after disaster strikes. I am pleased that my amendment that will help in the implementation of this program and ensure that growers have access to the funds that have been provided for them was accepted during floor consideration. I am confident that it will be a significant improvement for growers in Washington and across the country.

This bill also includes a critical program for Washington asparagus growers--the Asparagus Market Loss Program. While the Andean Trade Preferences Act and Peru Trade Promotion Agreement are likely to have a significant positive effect on many different agricultural products, they have led to devastation in the asparagus industry. Since the passage of the Andean Trade Preferences Act, Washington has lost 21,000 of its 30,000 acres dedicated to asparagus, and all three of Washington's asparagus canning facilities have now moved to Peru. In the past 17 years, the $200 million Washington asparagus industry has been reduced to a $75 million industry. This is the reason that I worked so hard with Senators Stabenow and Murray to include the $15 million market loss program dedicated to asparagus growers in the farm bill. This program will support domestic asparagus producers, helping them plant and harvest more efficiently and remain competitive in the international marketplace.

It is also important to remember that a farm bill is about more than farms. It is also about addressing the Nation's nutrition needs and finding ways to best conserve our land. As one of the pilot States for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Washington can attest to the positive impact created by this innovative program. Not only does this program provide fresh and nutritious food for our schoolchildren, but in doing so, it creates a domestic market for our fruit and vegetable growers. Well-nourished children are given a greater opportunity to succeed in school, and children who are provided fresh fruit and vegetables as opposed to chips, cookies, and other junk foods, have a head start in fighting the epidemic of childhood obesity. The $1.1 billion provided for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program in this bill will extend this program to 100 schools in each State so that children across the country can benefit from the nutritious snacks provided by America's farmers. This program is a key piece of the overall nutrition focus in this bill. From children's advocates to the religious community to college students and health organizations, I have heard from a wide variety of constituents on the importance of nutrition programs, and I am pleased this bill prioritizes our country's nutrition needs.

In addition to agriculture and nutrition, the farm bill's conservation title is a high priority for Washington and Washingtonians. From the shimmering Puget Sound and the majestic Cascade Mountains, to the breathtaking Columbia River Gorge and amber fields of our southeast counties, my State of Washington prides itself on its diverse and iconic natural beauty. Protecting that natural beauty is a top priority for me and is why I am pleased at this bill's funding for popular conservation programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program and measures to make popular programs like the Conservation Security Program more accessible and easier to use for our wheat farmers, specialty crop growers, and other producers. Additionally, this bill provides for biomass and bioenergy research programs and focuses in part on cellulosic feedstock, which is key for Washington's farmers. These research programs are not only critical to the creation of new, clean energy sources and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, they provide another valuable domestic market for our farmers. By focusing our efforts on expanding the involvement of our farmers in creating clean renewable energy, we are helping our farmers, helping our environment, and being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar. I commend the Agriculture Committee on a strong conservation title. I will look to find ways in which it can be strengthened even further and will vote against any attempt to weaken it.

From a historic investment in specialty crop programs to the significantly improved nutrition title and the strong conservation title, the committee bill before us today is the best bill for Washington in memory. Once again, thank you to Senators Harkin and Chambliss for their work on this strong, bipartisan bill. I strongly urge all Senators to vote in favor of final passage.