Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program and why we need to reauthorize the program that is about to expire in September. I thank Chairman Baucus and Senators Grassley, Rockefeller, and Hatch for their countless hours of meetings before the Senate Finance Committee, which met to mark up this bipartisan package. The fact that the bill passed out of committee with such a bipartisan effort shows people are working on both sides of the aisle to make children's health care a priority.

While my colleagues have talked a lot about what the administration has threatened to do in vetoing this legislation, in fact, as my colleague from Iowa mentioned on the floor, the President's own budget request doesn't put enough money on the table to take care of those currently enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program. In a bipartisan effort in the Senate, we are working across the aisle to say we want to do more, we want to cover about 3.2 million more children.

I thank my colleagues and their staff for coming up with this comprehensive bill and moving us further down the way to covering more children in America, as it is such a priority.

Some of my colleagues have mentioned why this is such important timing, and many have mentioned the fact that the bill's authorization is expiring in September. I think there is a more important reason. The important reason is we are seeing the cost of health care continue to rise; the fact that premiums have doubled, probably, in the last 5 to 6 years; the fact that insurance now is somewhere between $12,000 and $14,000 a year. A family who is at an income of $40,000 a year for a family of four is finding it very hard to keep pace. Those premiums may have doubled, but I guarantee you their wages and salaries have not doubled. So more and more people are finding themselves in the unfortunate situation of not being able to provide health care for their children.

I can tell you, in talking to people from all over Washington State, there is nothing more concerning to the parents than the health of their child and nothing more scary than to think they may not be able to get the health care attention their child needs.

So for us, we have a choice--a very smart choice. This is a cost- effective bill. If you think about the costs of providing children's health insurance under this proposal, we are helping families who cannot afford private insurance, or cannot find it available in the marketplace, or maybe their employer is not providing it. Now, under this program, with State and Federal

matching dollars, these families can provide health insurance for roughly $2,000 a year per child--maybe a little more or a little less, in some instances, for those currently on the program to the new enrollees.

Think about that. Think about the fact that if you don't have health insurance and a child is delayed in getting that health care or has to wait until the last minute to go into an emergency room, I guarantee the cost of a child's visit to an emergency room is probably going to be at least $3,000. The fact that we can make this prudent investment for 3.2 million more children; not only is this about their health and safety for the future, but it is about a plan that helps us in making sure we have an efficient health care system, giving those children their due need.

Too many families, as I said, are being forced to go without this coverage. What does that mean? We talk about preventive care and maintenance care. It means that these children are going without regular checkups, that they are missing more school than other children, and that they have to wait in the emergency room to get an answer about something that is a basic illness. It means that if simple infections--such as an ear infection or cavities or asthma or diabetes--go untreated and they spiral out of control, that child may fall further and further behind in their academic career. I believe no child should be forced into a special education program because their health care needs haven't been provided for.

This bill provides better coverage so we can treat things such as injuries and infections, detect far worse things such as chronic illnesses and make sure we are managing the conditions of children before they get out of control.

I know it is upsetting to my colleagues to read things such as: Uninsured children are four times more likely to delay their health care or that uninsured children are four times more likely to go without a doctor visit for 2 years or that uninsured children admitted to hospitals due to injuries are twice as likely to die while in the hospital as their insured counterparts.

Those are horrible statistics that point to the dilemma of not providing health care coverage for children.

I know my colleagues have been out here on the floor debating this issue as it relates to fairness and geography. I tell you, no child knows they are somehow prohibited from getting access to health insurance because of geography. Nor should the Senate make the mistake in thinking we are making geographic choices.

This bill is about flexibility. It starts with the flexibility of individual States because this is a partnership between the States and Federal Government in deciding what percentage of the Federal poverty line they are going to cover.

You can see on this chart the States in white have been more aggressive in covering a higher percentage of the Federal poverty line, and those in the gold color are obviously below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why certain States are more aggressive or active in covering their area. If you look at the income and cost of living in these areas, they are challenged by what it takes to maintain a household, to put their children in school, and to take care of their health care needs. For example, there are parts of the country such as New Jersey, which the Presiding Officer is from. If you look at what it takes to provide the same goods and services in New Jersey and compare that with someplace like Arkansas, you are talking about a $13,000 difference in what it costs to provide the same services. In Little Rock, it may cost $30,000 for those goods and services, compared to $43,000 in New Jersey. That is why this flexibility is so important in the program. The fact that we allow States to determine its costs and we match that with Federal dollars.

The second thing we have not focused enough on is the fact that we also have disparity in insurance costs. Look at what it costs to provide insurance. For example, it is expensive to provide health insurance in Seattle, which costs about $13,000 a year. If you look at New York, it is $16,542. So the notion that somehow New York or New Jersey are getting a better deal because they live in a high-expense area of the United States and somehow, even with that extra cost of insurance, we should prejudice legislation from serving those children, I say that is a mistake. Every child in America who is covered by this health insurance program will be healthier, and every child who is covered and healthy will not only be a more contributing citizen to our society, but also we are going to reduce our own health care costs in the future.

So it is a wise and prudent plan to have such diversity in this proposal. I ask my colleagues, before they come out and look at formulas and offer amendments that basically cut States from having the flexibility in these formulas, to consider the geographic disparity and the challenges those individual States face.

I believe the Children's Health Insurance Program provides a critical backstop to families. They would rather be in a situation where they could provide the health insurance and care, I am sure, for themselves. I have certainly met Washingtonians who have given up their own health insurance to provide health insurance for their children.

We need to prevent the number of uninsured children in this Nation from growing, and this bill, the Children's Health Insurance Program, should be reauthorized and expanded to make sure we do stop the number from growing and that we attach our principles of covering at least 3.2 million now and, as we see brighter budget days coming back, covering the rest of the children in America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2008 along with Senators Snowe, Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg, and Lott. This comprehensive legislation will provide the Coast Guard with needed resources to carry out missions critical to our Nation's security, environmental protection, and fisheries enforcement.

The U.S. Coast Guard plays a critical role in keeping our oceans, coasts, and waterways safe, secure, and free from environmental harm. After September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, the Coast Guard has been a source of strength. As marine traffic grows, the number of security threats in our ports increases. Climate change is raising the stakes of another Katrina happening.

The Coast Guard faces many challenges, and those serving in the Coast Guard routinely serve with discipline and courage. From saving lives during natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to protecting our shores in a post-9/11 world, the Coast Guard has served America well, and continues to serve us every day.

Each year, maritime smugglers transport thousands of aliens to the U.S. with virtual impunity because the existing law does not sufficiently punish or deter such conduct. During fiscal years 2004 and 2005, over 840 mariners made $13.9 million smuggling people into the U.S. illegally. Less than 3 percent of those who were interdicted were referred for prosecution.

This bill gives the Coast Guard the authority it needs to prosecute mariners who intentionally smuggle aliens on board their vessels with a reckless disregard of our laws. It also provides protection for legitimate mariners who encounter stowaways or those who may need medical attention.

Our Nation relies heavily on polar icebreakers to conduct missions in the Arctic and Antarctic. They conduct vital research on the oceans and climate, resupply U.S. outposts in Antarctica, and provide one of our Nation's only platforms for carrying out security and rescue missions in some of the world's most rapidly changing environments.

Currently, the United States' icebreaking capabilities lie with the Coast Guard's three vessels: the HEALY; the Polar Sea; and the Polar Star. But the fleet is aging rapidly and requires extensive maintenance. In fact, the Polar Star is currently not even operational because the Coast Guard lacks the resources required to maintain this vessel.

With increased climate change, the role of icebreakers is changing. With an ice-free Arctic summer expected by 2050, more and more international expeditions will be headed to the region to examine newly revealed oil and gas reserves and other natural resources.

Canada, Russia and other countries will begin to compete with America over jurisdiction and, without a strong polar icebreaker fleet, our Nation will suffer a severe disadvantage.

A recent 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that the U.S. needs to maintain polar icebreaking capacity and construct at least two new polar icebreakers. This bill follows those recommendations.

This bill includes many provisions of the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, which I introduced on June 14, 2007. These provisions are vital for the environmental protection of our Nation's oceans and coasts. For example, this bill would require improved coordination with federally-recognized tribes on oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. It would also address oil spills resulting from the transfer of oil to or from vessels, spills resulting from human error, and small oil spills that are an all-too-common occurrence in many of our waterways.

For my home State of Washington, it provides a mechanism for year- round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oil spill prevention safety net for Washington State's Olympic Coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port Line'' so as to deliver better incident response throughout Puget Sound.

The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring our country's security, marine safety and protecting our environment and fisheries. Every day the Coast Guard carries out these missions and does so with limited resources. It is our job to ensure the Coast Guard has the tools it requires to continue getting the job done. This bill will go a long way towards that goal. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2008 along with Senators Snowe, Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg, and Lott. This comprehensive legislation will provide the Coast Guard with needed resources to carry out missions critical to our Nation's security, environmental protection, and fisheries enforcement.

The U.S. Coast Guard plays a critical role in keeping our oceans, coasts, and waterways safe, secure, and free from environmental harm. After September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, the Coast Guard has been a source of strength. As marine traffic grows, the number of security threats in our ports increases. Climate change is raising the stakes of another Katrina happening.

The Coast Guard faces many challenges, and those serving in the Coast Guard routinely serve with discipline and courage. From saving lives during natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to protecting our shores in a post-9/11 world, the Coast Guard has served America well, and continues to serve us every day.

Each year, maritime smugglers transport thousands of aliens to the U.S. with virtual impunity because the existing law does not sufficiently punish or deter such conduct. During fiscal years 2004 and 2005, over 840 mariners made $13.9 million smuggling people into the U.S. illegally. Less than 3 percent of those who were interdicted were referred for prosecution.

This bill gives the Coast Guard the authority it needs to prosecute mariners who intentionally smuggle aliens on board their vessels with a reckless disregard of our laws. It also provides protection for legitimate mariners who encounter stowaways or those who may need medical attention.

Our Nation relies heavily on polar icebreakers to conduct missions in the Arctic and Antarctic. They conduct vital research on the oceans and climate, resupply U.S. outposts in Antarctica, and provide one of our Nation's only platforms for carrying out security and rescue missions in some of the world's most rapidly changing environments.

Currently, the United States' icebreaking capabilities lie with the Coast Guard's three vessels: the HEALY; the Polar Sea; and the Polar Star. But the fleet is aging rapidly and requires extensive maintenance. In fact, the Polar Star is currently not even operational because the Coast Guard lacks the resources required to maintain this vessel.

With increased climate change, the role of icebreakers is changing. With an ice-free Arctic summer expected by 2050, more and more international expeditions will be headed to the region to examine newly revealed oil and gas reserves and other natural resources.

Canada, Russia and other countries will begin to compete with America over jurisdiction and, without a strong polar icebreaker fleet, our Nation will suffer a severe disadvantage.

A recent 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that the U.S. needs to maintain polar icebreaking capacity and construct at least two new polar icebreakers. This bill follows those recommendations.

This bill includes many provisions of the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, which I introduced on June 14, 2007. These provisions are vital for the environmental protection of our Nation's oceans and coasts. For example, this bill would require improved coordination with federally-recognized tribes on oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. It would also address oil spills resulting from the transfer of oil to or from vessels, spills resulting from human error, and small oil spills that are an all-too-common occurrence in many of our waterways.

For my home State of Washington, it provides a mechanism for year- round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oil spill prevention safety net for Washington State's Olympic Coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port Line'' so as to deliver better incident response throughout Puget Sound.

The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring our country's security, marine safety and protecting our environment and fisheries. Every day the Coast Guard carries out these missions and does so with limited resources. It is our job to ensure the Coast Guard has the tools it requires to continue getting the job done. This bill will go a long way towards that goal. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation.

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

Madam President, I rise because I believe we need to have an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Levin-Reed amendment. I believe it is time to change course in Iraq. I believe a majority of the Senate believes we need to change course in Iraq and change the combat role the United States is playing to a role of support. We have lost more than 3,600 U.S. soldiers, and my State of Washington has been deeply involved from the very beginning, from the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln to the service of the Stryker brigade from Fort Lewis and the continued service of that brigade on the front lines in Iraq today. The Stryker brigade has suffered severe casualties, and they continue to serve us well.

The cost of this war has been great, over $450 billion. The United States is now spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. What we are asking is the ability to find out whether a majority of the Senate supports changing the course in Iraq. By filibustering, the other side is preventing us from finding that out. I am not saying I don't support the rights of the minority to filibuster. I do. But I also respect the strong desire by the American people to see where every Senator stands on this proposal to change the course in Iraq being proposed today. That is what the debate is about, whether we are going to see how each Senator votes on this issue. If the filibuster continues, we won't see that vote.

Some people have talked about the surge. I respect those who believe and advocate for the surge. I do not support the surge as a strategy. This Senator bought into the milestones that this body approved in the Warner-Frist amendment. I believed in a bipartisan effort of 79 Senators, in legislation that was a part of the Defense authorization

act that was then signed by the President of the United States in January 2006.

The Warner-Frist amendment said, in a bipartisan fashion, what this body wanted to see happen in Iraq. It said that 2006 should be the year of significant transition. We said that 2006 is when Iraqi Security Forces should take the lead. That is when they should create conditions for a phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That was the goal at the end 2006. I took those goals seriously.

The Warner-Frist amendment said we should be telling the leaders of all groups and all political parties in Iraq that in 2006 they needed to make the political compromises necessary to achieve the broad, sustainable political settlements that were essential for bringing Iraq together and defeating the insurgents. Even during that time period, President Talabani of Iraq said that by the end of 2006 they would be able to take over all 18 provinces under their security. So, yes, this Senator was greatly disappointed when those goals were not met. Again, I did not support the surge because the 2006 milestones were not met. It showed that we were not making sufficient progress in Iraq and needed a change of course.

And by any measure today, the Iraqis have not and are not making progress on the political and security benchmarks that need to be achieved. Debaathification reform, amendments to the Iraqi Constitution, the passage of an oil law--all of these things are being stymied. Only seven of the 18 provinces have acquired full responsibility for their own security, even though there are 349,000 Iraqi security forces that have been trained and equipped.

The violence continues in Iraq, everywhere from Kirkuk to Basra. This Senator wants to see a change in how we are approaching this situation. I want to see more of an aggressive effort on diplomacy and international engagement to press for political solutions to stabilize Iraq.

This is what the Iraq Study Group called for. It said:

The United States should immediately launch a new

diplomatic offensive to build international consensus for

stability in Iraq and the region.

That is what the Iraq Study Group recommended. It saw that at the heart of the violence in Iraq were political disagreements causing a lot of turmoil within the country. Those disputes require a diplomatic and political solution.

I believe this is what is at the core of the Levin-Reed amendment--a strategy to press for a political solution. I know my colleagues disagree on dates and guidelines in the amendment. However, I believe in the Levin-Reed amendment, which calls for a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purposes of collectively bringing stability to that region. I applaud Senator Hagel for including language in this amendment requiring the United States to work with the United Nations to appoint an international mediator for Iraq.

I know people believe the United States should continue to play a primary role in Iraqi disputes, but the United Nations and United Nations Security Council must have a significant role. The international community should engage in these political and ethnic issues that are stymying us. I believe it is time for the international community and the United States not to be for the long, hard slog of deployment but for the long, hard slog of diplomacy. The Levin-Reed amendment creates a framework for international engagement that has been missing.

Why do I believe this is so important? I believe this is important because I think one of the key benchmarks we are missing that has caused great consternation is the issue of equitable distribution of Iraqi oil revenue. I wish the Iraqis had successfully passed an oil law and it had stabilized the region. It is no surprise that three different regions of the country are concerned about the distribution of oil revenue. There is a lot of concern about exactly who will have control over the oil in those areas, how much oil revenue will be distributed by the federal government, and what role the new Iraqi national oil company will play. But also at the heart of this dispute are Iraqi fears that, in the draft oil law, there is a great deal of benefit for foreign oil companies. In fact, the Bush administration has pushed the current draft of an oil law that allows for the privatization of Iraqi oil.

I know that there is a dangerous perception that somehow we went to Iraq for oil. That was not something this Senator believed. However, there have been many statements that concern me. In fact, Ahmed Chalabi was quoted as saying:

American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.

Another European oil executive said:

For any oil company being in Iraq is like being a kid in

FAO Schwarz.

This Senator did not pay much attention to that, but I am paying attention now to the fact that this current draft of an oil law says the Iraqi National Oil Company would have exclusive control--that is the federal entity--of just 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields.

All the rest, along with all the undiscovered oil, would be open to foreign control. So the majority of oil in Iraq would be open to foreign control. Why is this such a big deal? It is important because at one time Iraqi oil reserves were seen as the second largest in the world. Today they are probably somewhere between the third and fourth largest oil reserves.

In fact, the Heritage Foundation, in 2003, released a paper advocating for the privatization of Iraq's oil and arguing that Iraq's reconstruction and privatization of its oil and gas sector could become a model for oil industry privatization in other OPEC states as well.

I know that may be attractive to people who think we should stay there and somehow glom on to Iraqi oil. This Senator does not believe that is what we should be doing.

I know that many people have mentioned former Secretary of State Kissinger's recent policy op-ed piece. He said we cannot allow the Iraqi energy supply to be controlled by a country with Iran's revolutionary and taunting foreign policy. He suggested that, if we leave and Iran takes over, they will have control of the Iraqi oil. But I would refer those who agree with Kissinger to the Iraq Study Group's conclusion:

The United States can begin to shape a positive climate for

diplomatic efforts internationally with Iraq through public

statements that reject the notion that the United States

seeks to control Iraq's oil or seeks to have permanent bases

within Iraq.

We are sending the wrong message in Iraq if we continue to support a policy that gives the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government the notion that we are there to try to control the oil.

Like the Iraq Study Group, I believe the international community and international energy companies should invest in Iraqi oil. Foreign expertise in investment is important to upgrading the infrastructure and boosting production. But that international involvement must come at Iraq's initiative, and the Iraqi people must decide what level of foreign participation is best for their country.

We need to send the Iraqi people, the people of the Middle East, and the world a message that is loud and clear--we do not intend to stay in Iraq for their oil. To that end, I am happy to cosponsor with my colleague Senator Biden a resolution that calls on us to clearly articulate that we have no intention of keeping permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or any intentions of exercising control over Iraqi oil.

Before we went into Iraq, there were a lot of people, including the Vice President, who said we would get X million barrels a day from Iraq. Former Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz estimated at one point in time the oil revenues of that country would bring us between $50 and $100 billion over the next 2 to 3 years. One State Department spokesperson said oil would be the ``engine of Iraq's reconstruction. No one is talking about a Marshall plan for Iraq because the oil will take care of that.''

That did not happen. Today we see a bogged-down political process in Iraq because they are fighting over oil. We can move ahead, and this amendment by my colleagues Senators Levin and Reed gives us the framework to do that. Our efforts here in the Senate are moving forward on a diversified plan to

get off our overdependence on Middle East oil. They are also critically important.

I know some would say: Well, it is important that we make sure that terrorists don't get their hands on Iraqi oil money. I would remind my colleagues that a U.S. Government report that was obtained by the New York Times said many insurgents involved in terrorist attacks in Iraq are already raising $25 to $100 million a year from oil smuggling and criminal activities.

It is important to secure Iraqi oil infrastructure and for the Iraqis to resolve their disputes over oil rights.

I believe we should move ahead on a framework that has more international involvement. The United States and the international community should be trying to bring Iraqis together to reach compromises on these important issues. I believe this is something the United States can achieve.

Some people may look at the problems in Iraq, the ongoing ethnic violence, the division between the Sunnis and Shiites and the Kurds, and think it is impossible to stabilize the country. But the United States has stepped up to serious international challenges in the past and stabilized new governments that have also been plagued by ethnic violence and long histories of dispute.

How did we do it? All we have to do is look at the former Yugoslavia where the international community got together with various parties, from the European Union to Russia to NATO to countries in the region, and built a framework that ended serious ethnic violence. The civil war in Bosnia resulted in 100,000 to 110,000 deaths. While it is not on the same scale as the challenges we face in Iraq, the peace the United States was able to help achieve was nonetheless remarkable.

We must do the same thing in Iraq. We need the help of the United Nations, the Arab League, and the rest of Iraq's neighbors, and we need the framework in the amendment my colleagues Senators Levin and Reed have authored. It would put us on a path toward a real comprehensive diplomatic and political solution for Iraq.

We deserve the chance to have an up or down vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. It is now an important time for us to realize that the benchmarks we set have not, and are not, being met. We need a change of course in Iraq. We need to have more involvement by the international community in solving the political problems on the ground. The Levin- Reed amendment would make a strong statement about what the U.S. hopes to achieve in stabilizing the Iraqi government. And we need to put to rest the notion that the United States will stay in Iraq for oil or for permanent U.S. bases. We cannot continue in an endless combat role in Iraq.

We need to change the course, and we can have a policy that allows us to do that by holding an up or down vote on this amendment today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, during the fall of 2006, Mount Rainier, Olympic, and North Cascades National Parks endured incredible devastation from tremendous wind and rainstorms. Mount Rainier National Park received almost 18 inches of rainfall in 36 hours. Rivers and streams all over the park overwhelmed their channels, with floods that exceeded anything the park had experienced in its 108-year history. Olympic National Park experienced a series of Pacific storms that brought significant road and trail damage. North Cascades National Park Complex experienced numerous winter windstorms, which resulted in abnormally large numbers of downed trees over trails and floods causing damage to several roads. The National Park Service estimated that damage to roads,

trails, campgrounds, and buildings in all three parks exceeded $40 million.

Today I recommend to National Park Director Mary Bomar the awarding of National Park Service commendations to the entire staff of Mount Rainier, Olympic and North Cascades National Parks for their commitment to repair and restore these parks. Their efforts exemplify the mandate of the National Park Service ``to provide for the enjoyment of [the parks] in such manner and by which means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''

Immediately following the storm, the personnel of these national parks worked continuously, often during their days off, to repair roads, rebuild trails, clean up campgrounds, and repair facilities. The citizens of Washington have a great interest in ensuring that the health, public and economic benefits, and welfare of Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic National Parks are restored for present and future generations. Without the extraordinary efforts of Park Service employees, it is likely that the parks would be decades from completing repairs, to the extent that they would be completed at all.

It is my honor as a Senator of the State of Washington to recognize the heroic efforts of these men and women and express my gratitude on behalf of my constituents and all Americans that enjoy and treasure these parks as ``sanctuaries of enjoyment, recreation, learning, and personal renewal.''

Mr. President, I rise tonight because we are on the precipice of passing new energy legislation--new energy legislation that will point our country in a new direction, on an energy strategy that is about cleaner, renewable alternative fuel, and, yes, on research and development, on many other ways that will help us, as Americans, be energy leaders again.

It is exciting to be here tonight on the Senate floor as new legislation is being adopted that does change the direction in ways my colleagues have been fighting for many years and many of the staff who are behind me have been fighting for much of their legislative careers on the Hill. But we are here tonight because Senator Reid, early this year, asked six different committees to come up with energy legislation and point our country in a new direction. He asked each of those committees to put those proposals on the Senate floor by passing them out in a bipartisan fashion, and those committees have done so.

Now, while we have not gotten all those packages together, we do have a proposal before us that would save the United States 20 percent on the oil consumption of today. That is a great goal. It does it in two fundamental ways: by making sure we produce alternative fuel--and what is before us tonight is 36 billion gallons of alternative fuel, mostly done by advanced technologies of cellulosic that will be a much bigger reduction of CO2 emissions than corn-based ethanol, and that is a huge direction change--and the amendment of the Senator from California to make sure we have fuel-efficient cars.

For the first time in decades, we are passing legislation that will allow Americans to get more out of a tank of gas. In fact, with this new standard for fuel efficiency, Americans, when they fill up their tank, will be able to go anywhere from 100 to 150 more miles on that tank of gas when these fuel efficiency standards are fully implemented.

Because we are also including a flex-fuel provision, we are giving Americans a chance to have their automobiles run on two different fuel choices: fossil fuel or new advanced green renewable fuels that will be a great reduction of CO2 and carbon emissions and will help in the reduction of demand for gasoline and thereby help lower the price of gasoline. This is exactly what America wants us to do in a new energy direction.

We should also emphasize that the underlying bill tonight also has protections for consumers on price gouging and to make sure the Federal Trade Commission stops any manipulative practices. It also has a provision that the Federal Government do its job as one of the leading energy consumers in America. It says they have to use 30 percent less electricity and 20 percent less fuel.

Now, while I would like to see the provisions the Finance Committee passed that literally take the incentives which have been given to the fossil fuel industry in the past--take those and apply those to renewable technologies--we will have to wait another day for that battle to occur.

I certainly join my colleagues in wanting to see more of our electricity grid supplied with green energy technology, to incentivize solar, to incentivize wind. I believe this is one of the best ways we can keep our electricity costs down in the future. Right now, we are too dependent on natural gas, for which we have seen a 70-percent increase in the last several years. Natural gas, which is also used in fertilizer as a product, is putting pressure on our electricity grid prices. We do not want to be just dependent on natural gas and coal for electricity generation.

So coming back to this renewable standard and getting more of our national grid to rely on clean energy is very important to help consumers keep down price in the future. But those two provisions, we will have to come back to. We were not able to reach agreement on those.

But in this landmark legislation, we are going to give Americans more for their tank of gas by passing fuel efficiency and passing the opportunity to fill up their gas tank with something other than fossil fuel. Driving down the price of fossil fuel is a great accomplishment. We would not have gotten here if it was not for the chairman of the Commerce Committee and the ranking member, Senators Inouye and Stevens, who worked very hard to make sure this was bipartisan legislation, as did Senator Snowe, working with Senator Feinstein, making sure this legislation made it the full way through the process.

While this is only the Senate taking action tonight, we are clearly turning our country in a new direction. This is a greener energy bill than the Senate has passed before but rightly so because the 2005 bill did set us on a course of making sure we were investing in alternatives. The fact that we were putting a downpayment on those alternatives has led to job creation, not just in my State, Washington State, but throughout the country. But it is time for us to accelerate that, to bring job opportunities to Americans across the country, by making sure these new technologies are implemented. We are well poised to do that tonight.

I hope my colleagues understand the significance of this new energy direction. I thank all of the chairs of the various committees who have worked hard on a bipartisan basis--the Finance Committee, the EPW Committee, the Energy Committee, the Commerce Committee, and even the Homeland Security Committee--in making sure our Federal Government is more energy efficient. This is a great time for us to continue the bipartisan effort in working not just across the aisle but working with the House of Representatives in making sure this energy legislation passes as soon as possible.

Again, I applaud the great work of my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her perseverance over at least 10 years in trying to close the loopholes that have existed in CAFE, the car efficiency standards, by making sure the loopholes for SUVs were closed. Even though she did not win that battle, she persevered tonight to make sure this new efficiency standard, applied across the Nation, can bring real savings to American consumers.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the members of the University of Washington Men's Crew Team, which won the Intercollegiate Rowing Association Championships on June 2, 2007 at Copper River in New Jersey.

The Washington Huskies came to the Intercollegiate Rowing Association Championship Regatta with great expectations. All season, the team was ranked No. 1 in the Nation and was ranked as the top seed at the regatta.

And the University of Washington delivered.

The men's varsity eight raced down the 2,000 meter course to a first place finish with a time of 5:33.16, holding off advances from Stanford and Harvard. This is the first time since 1997 that the Huskies have won the varsity eight race and marks the 12th varsity eight national championship for the University.

In addition, the second varsity eight and open four boats also earned gold medals, finishing their races in 5:43.02 and 6:26.44 respectfully. The Huskies freshman eight also found themselves on the podium stand, finishing third in their race.

In addition to these individual boat success stories, the Husky men exhibited teamwork by winning the overall points championship and capturing the Ten Eyck Trophy for the first time since 1970. The University of Washington amassed 216 points, followed by Harvard with 191, and California with 190.

The Huskies have been competing in the Intercollegiate Rowing Association Championship Regatta since 1913. I am proud that this group of young men has continued this tradition of competition and success at this year's championship and they should be commended for their determination, work ethic, and heart.

Once again, I would like to congratulate the members of the University of Washington Men's Crew Team for their impressive achievement.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of what is the Bingaman amendment, to make sure we diversify our national energy supply by investing in 15 percent renewables, and against the Domenici amendment, which the chairman of the Energy Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, just mentioned he is going to make a motion to table pretty soon. I agree to tabling that amendment.

Let me say that I have listened to a lot of the debate on renewables and what we need to do, and I have heard a lot of people talk about wind out here and a lot of people talk about solar. I look at this a little differently. I really think this debate is all about natural gas.

I say it is about natural gas because I listen to the farmers in Washington State and throughout America about the high price of natural gas. I hear how much the price of natural gas is going up. The issue is that natural gas is used both for our electricity grid and it is used as a product to make a solid for fertilizer that farmers need, and the price is going up. It has gone anywhere from what historically used to be $2, to $7 or $8, and in some cases we have seen it go as high as $14 or $15.

What I am saying is that we are having competition for natural gas between our electricity grids and our farmers. The future of natural gas is only going to increase. It is only going to increase. That leaves us with one choice; that is, to diversify off of natural gas for our electricity grid. How do we diversify off natural gas for our electricity grid? We start planning for renewables.

I know there are many utilities wandering the Halls of Congress trying to lobby against this particular provision of the United States setting a goal of focusing on renewable energy. I would say to them: Go look at how the U.S. economy is being impacted because we are already dependent on coal, already dependent on nuclear power, and already dependent on this natural gas that is continuing to rise at steady levels and is going to impact our agricultural economy.

In fact, 15 years ago, only 10 percent of our U.S. nitrogen, a fertilizer product, was imported. Today about half of it is imported. We have seen many of these businesses, over 21 of them in the United States, shut down because of these high costs. What we need to do is push to give alternative fuel; that is, alternative sources of electricity generation, an opportunity to be used in America. The best way for us to do that is to set this mandate in Federal policy so we can protect consumers from the high cost of natural gas in the future.

To do nothing is to say that farmers are going to have to pay more or maybe go out of business or their products are going to be too expensive for international markets or say to consumers: You are going to pay more for your electricity because natural gas prices are going to rise or we can say to consumers instead: We took active

measures to diversify our electricity supply and to start using other renewables that will help in getting off the high cost of natural gas.

To my colleagues who come to the floor and say alternative fuels are going to cost more, doing nothing is going to cost more, and depending on the current infrastructure is going to cost more because we already know those supplies are going to go up. Let's take the use of natural gas down by creating other alternatives.

I happen to believe that creating those other alternatives actually will save consumers. I know people have mentioned how the Union of Concerned Scientists say it will basically generate $16.7 billion because of what it will generate in new economic activity, by using alternative fuels. I do applaud the former chairman of the Energy Committee, the other Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, because he did get the ball rolling with the last Energy bill, getting us focused on incentives for renewable energy. My State probably has taken more advantage of that than just about any other State in the variety of products that we are producing. We now have, in some of the communities of our State, the alternative generation community--whether it is wind or solar or alternative fuels. They are actually out there producing large quantities of cheaper electricity for the grid, and they are also becoming some of the largest employers in some of our rural communities. From an economic development perspective, it is working. In fact, one analysis on a national level says the clean energy strategy could generate as much as $700 billion in economic activity and create 5 million new jobs.

That is not just on this particular Bingaman amendment proposal but the whole package, of which this is a symbol of the kinds of activities that could be done with our electricity grid.

Let me say something about other sources because we keep hearing, again, about wind and solar. This is a lot about biomass. I am a big believer that we are going to see a lot of biomass generation across this country--whether you are talking about switch grass or whether you are talking about using waste to supply new electricity.

Two major industries just came by my office--one a big timber interest and another a big existing oil company--talking about how they are going to diversify in Southern States on biomass. I know of many investments in the southern parts of our country in biomass, so I expect to see a lot of jobs created in the southern region of the United States from biomass. We have to push forward in saying we as a nation want to see a percentage of our electricity grid from that biomass--not just solar, not just wind, but from that biomass. To me, this is a great opportunity to do that.

One cost that no one is talking about, because no one has put a price on it, is the future cost of continuing to rely, with our electricity grid, on CO2 emittance and the cost to our environment of relying on coal and some of our other generation sources in this issue. I know my colleagues are working on what we think the cost of that will be to future generations. But what is clear when you look at this debate is that part of our clean energy policy, when the electricity grid diversifies off of the more expensive products that we know are going to go up, like natural gas, it creates more jobs in the short term and diversifies our portfolio, driving down the demand for natural gas and helping us on supply. It also helps us with that hidden cost that we all are actually paying in the pollution of our current electricity grid. It is helping individual regional economies grow.

I think the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, has put forth a great proposal on 15 percent. Let's make sure we take this stance so we let Americans know we don't think the existing energy stream is what we are going to saddle them with for the future. The American people believe alternative fuel can help us off of this dependence we have right now on fossil fuel, and they believe its development will be cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient for us in the future. But we have to show them the Senate gets it and understands and is willing to set that goal into Federal statute.

I hope the President will also join in this effort because the President, as Governor of Texas, implemented a similar mandate in Texas. I think it worked very well for them so I hope he will lend his support; come up to the Hill and encourage people that the high cost of natural gas on our farmers, on our businesses, is something we are not going to tolerate, its continuing to rise is something we are not going to tolerate. We are going to diversify off of that, protect consumers, and give them alternative fuel sources to supply our electricity grid.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 with my colleague Senator Kerry, This comprehensive legislation strengthens and builds upon the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. Congress passed OPA 90 shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound, the largest spill in U.S, history. OPA 90 revolutionized oilspill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank or improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response.

It is important to recognize that we have come a long way since OPA 90. This is especially true in my home State of Washington. The Coast Guard's District 13 leads the Nation in oilspill prevention and works closely with the State of Washington, tribal governments, and industry.

While we recognize the good work that is already being carried out in Washington and elsewhere, we must also look to continually improve our

ability to prevent and respond to oilspills. While the probability of a major oilspill has been greatly reduced since OPA 90, the potential impact of such a spill is now greater than ever.

According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oilspills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In 1992, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil; in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons, and a significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In 2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and 1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. Furthermore, even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the Exxon Valdez can be devastating.

Again, to use examples from Washington State: endangered species like salmon and southern resident orca whales are increasingly vulnerable to the acute and chronic impacts of an oilspill. We have a National Marine Sanctuary off our coast that demands stepped-up protection, and we must take care to hold up our trust obligations to treaty tribes whose usual and accustomed fishing grounds would be devastated by a major spill. This is all to say that we must factor the consequence major spill into our equations for risk. My colleagues from around the country can, I am sure, point to similar examples.

In August of 2005, I chaired a Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard field hearing in Seattle. This hearing focused on improving our oil pollution prevention and response capabilities. As a result of testimony from that hearing and conversations with the Coast Guard and other stakeholders, I introduced the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 last March.

The bill I introduce today, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, updates that effort and includes additional provisions.

New provisions include a requirement that the Coast Guard notify States and tribal governments of maritime incidents in Federal waters that have the potential to impact state resources. The bill would also atlthorize the Coast Guard to train and work with qualified State vessel inspectors to bolster their existing ability to inspect vessels in port.

Other new provisions include a requirement for the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations allowing vessel owners to form nonprofit cooperatives to streamline their compliance with vessel response plan requirements. Also new is an authorization for an education and outreach grant program to prevent the frequency of small spills that occur from recreational vessels.

The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 retains key provisions from last year's bill that address a number of areas to improve prevention and response.

First, my bill directs the Coast Guard to finalize all rulemakings remaining from OPA 90 within 18 months. Remaining OPA 90 rules include the critical salvage and firefighting requirements, which would establish a national network of salvage and response vessels and equipment capable of assisting ships in distress. Implementation of the salvage and firefighting rule has been consistently pushed back, most recently in February of this year. It has been 17 years since the passage of OPA 90 and finalizing these rules in a timely manner will greatly improve our prevention and response capabilities.

Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oilspills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oilspills from vessels as well as ``near-misses.'' It would require the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high- risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. My bill would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oilspills from oil transfers. It would also make companies that knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010 ``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such contracts.

Of particular importance to my State, the bill would provide a mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oilspill prevention safety net for Washington State's Olympic coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port'' for Puget Sound to make westerly boundary begin at the entrance to the strait. This change would require oilspill response equipment to be stationed along the entire strait and not just east of the current line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would require improved coordination with federally recognized tribes on oilspill prevention, preparedness, and response.

The bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the oilspill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Dalco Passage Oilspill, and provide $1 million annually to support the council's important work. Finally, this bill would reiterate an OPA 90 directive for the Coast Guard and Department of State to enter into negotiations with Canada to ensure tug escorts for all tank ships with a capacity greater than 40,000 dead weight tons in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and Haro Strait.

The slow response to the oilspill in Daleo Passage in the Puget Sound was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would reinvigorate a Federal research program on oilspill prevention, detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of oilspills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations.

Oilspill prevention and response is timely for Congress to consider because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Hawaii, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, nontank vessels, and oil transfer operations.

One thing we have learned from these spills is that prevention is more cost-effective than cleaning up oil once it is released into the environment. We have also learned that although double hulls and redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oilspills.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and respond to oilspills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation.

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

There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 with my colleague Senator Kerry, This comprehensive legislation strengthens and builds upon the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. Congress passed OPA 90 shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound, the largest spill in U.S, history. OPA 90 revolutionized oilspill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank or improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response.

It is important to recognize that we have come a long way since OPA 90. This is especially true in my home State of Washington. The Coast Guard's District 13 leads the Nation in oilspill prevention and works closely with the State of Washington, tribal governments, and industry.

While we recognize the good work that is already being carried out in Washington and elsewhere, we must also look to continually improve our

ability to prevent and respond to oilspills. While the probability of a major oilspill has been greatly reduced since OPA 90, the potential impact of such a spill is now greater than ever.

According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oilspills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In 1992, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil; in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons, and a significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In 2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and 1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. Furthermore, even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the Exxon Valdez can be devastating.

Again, to use examples from Washington State: endangered species like salmon and southern resident orca whales are increasingly vulnerable to the acute and chronic impacts of an oilspill. We have a National Marine Sanctuary off our coast that demands stepped-up protection, and we must take care to hold up our trust obligations to treaty tribes whose usual and accustomed fishing grounds would be devastated by a major spill. This is all to say that we must factor the consequence major spill into our equations for risk. My colleagues from around the country can, I am sure, point to similar examples.

In August of 2005, I chaired a Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard field hearing in Seattle. This hearing focused on improving our oil pollution prevention and response capabilities. As a result of testimony from that hearing and conversations with the Coast Guard and other stakeholders, I introduced the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 last March.

The bill I introduce today, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, updates that effort and includes additional provisions.

New provisions include a requirement that the Coast Guard notify States and tribal governments of maritime incidents in Federal waters that have the potential to impact state resources. The bill would also atlthorize the Coast Guard to train and work with qualified State vessel inspectors to bolster their existing ability to inspect vessels in port.

Other new provisions include a requirement for the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations allowing vessel owners to form nonprofit cooperatives to streamline their compliance with vessel response plan requirements. Also new is an authorization for an education and outreach grant program to prevent the frequency of small spills that occur from recreational vessels.

The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 retains key provisions from last year's bill that address a number of areas to improve prevention and response.

First, my bill directs the Coast Guard to finalize all rulemakings remaining from OPA 90 within 18 months. Remaining OPA 90 rules include the critical salvage and firefighting requirements, which would establish a national network of salvage and response vessels and equipment capable of assisting ships in distress. Implementation of the salvage and firefighting rule has been consistently pushed back, most recently in February of this year. It has been 17 years since the passage of OPA 90 and finalizing these rules in a timely manner will greatly improve our prevention and response capabilities.

Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oilspills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oilspills from vessels as well as ``near-misses.'' It would require the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high- risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. My bill would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oilspills from oil transfers. It would also make companies that knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010 ``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such contracts.

Of particular importance to my State, the bill would provide a mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oilspill prevention safety net for Washington State's Olympic coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port'' for Puget Sound to make westerly boundary begin at the entrance to the strait. This change would require oilspill response equipment to be stationed along the entire strait and not just east of the current line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would require improved coordination with federally recognized tribes on oilspill prevention, preparedness, and response.

The bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the oilspill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Dalco Passage Oilspill, and provide $1 million annually to support the council's important work. Finally, this bill would reiterate an OPA 90 directive for the Coast Guard and Department of State to enter into negotiations with Canada to ensure tug escorts for all tank ships with a capacity greater than 40,000 dead weight tons in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and Haro Strait.

The slow response to the oilspill in Daleo Passage in the Puget Sound was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would reinvigorate a Federal research program on oilspill prevention, detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of oilspills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations.

Oilspill prevention and response is timely for Congress to consider because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Hawaii, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, nontank vessels, and oil transfer operations.

One thing we have learned from these spills is that prevention is more cost-effective than cleaning up oil once it is released into the environment. We have also learned that although double hulls and redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oilspills.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and respond to oilspills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation.

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

There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak against this amendment. I have been listening to the debate. While I think it is very important we move forward in our country on a new energy policy and new direction, I think we must do so in a safe, responsible way. That is, whatever we are doing, we need to keep our environmental laws and processes in place: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Water Act, the Conservation Resource and Recovery Act--all the things that are very important to our country and to our environment.

I think we are hearing a lot about refinery and refinery capacity. It reminds me of the electricity crisis we had in the West, starting in 2000-2001, when everybody blamed it on the fact the environmental laws stopped the ability to produce supply. When all was said and done, we found out it wasn't that; in fact, it was actually the manipulation of supply. So I think it is very important we move forward on new refinery capacity. In fact, in the last several years, there have been almost 140, either built or in the process of being built, new ethanol refineries. So they have had no trouble moving ahead, planning new economic development, job creation, and alternative fuel that is going to help deliver competition at the pump for fossil fuel.

In my State, a new biodiesel facility was undertaken and has been in the development stages. I think they will actually be producing and exporting that product sometime this year. They are going to produce 100 million gallons of biodiesel in this next year--20 years, 12 months. That is more capacity of biodiesel than was produced in the whole United States from a variety of sources.

This is a very aggressive effort of building alternative fuel refineries. Let's be honest, God only gave the United States 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, so the notion that somehow we are going to drill our way with fossil fuel to get off this foreign oil addiction is not going to happen. But we do not have to throw out our environmental laws to produce alternative fuel. We are in the process of doing alternative fuel.

If someone wants to meet all the environmental standards and build a new fossil fuel refinery, I am not opposed to that, but I want people to be aware that this is what is at the heart of this amendment, to throw out these environmental values that everybody else in America wants to live by if they want to have economic development. Why should the oil industry receive this particular privilege of waiving environmental statutes, just to have that benefit?

Let's keep in mind that alternative fuels are making those commitments, meeting those environmental standards, and have produced 140--either underway today or in the process, through the permit process--to develop 140 new alternative fuel refineries. That is progress in America and we should keep going. But we do not need this amendment to do that.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 6 minutes equally divided for debate, with Senator Inhofe controlling the final 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor, like many of my colleagues today, to talk about the direction--I should say new direction--we need in our energy policy. I know the President of the United States is coming up to meet with my Republican colleagues for lunch today and to talk about both immigration and energy policy. I hope the President will emphasize how important it is we get an energy bill but certainly that we get an energy bill that sets a new direction in America.

Obviously, the history and strength of our Nation lies in our ability to continually invent new ways of doing things. We are great as a nation in doing that. Whether it is building the most reliable electricity grid in the world, laying down a massive Interstate System, or helping to create the Internet, our people have marched forward in new, breathtaking directions. These achievements have historically provided our Nation with immense prosperity and a quality of life we all cherish.

The problem is our basic energy and transportation system is 50 to 100 years old. Today, we are faced with two choices: whether we are going to continue to operate the energy system that is a relic of the past century or we are going to create a new roadmap for the future that will allow Americans to again be global energy leaders. It is that simple.

Some will say our energy and transportation system is working fine and we should leave it the way it is. We have a lot of special interests swirling around Washington, DC, right now hoping we do not make much progress. But I would say we do not have to look any further than the pocketbook of Americans to know we are feeling severe impacts on our economy and our environment, and that doing nothing is not an option.

We are selling out too much in saying we cannot make aggressive change. We are shelling out too much to fill up

our gas tanks, and our local communities are losing too many jobs. All the while, we sacrifice more and more what is an engine to the U.S. economy; that is, affordable energy supply.

We cannot continue to drive forward only looking in the rearview mirror and saying we are going to be dependent on foreign oil. We need to do better.

Over 100 years ago, many of our homes were lit with kerosene. If you think about the early days, we traveled not by automobile but by foot or on horseback. Then a new industrial revolution took place, and it was, as the Presiding Officer knows, driven by newly invented coal- powered steam engines. It played an incredible part in our country's history.

Then a number of scrappy entrepreneurs came along, people such as Colonel Drake in Pennsylvania, who drilled the first oil well. Americans went on to capitalize on that new fuel to power our industry and provide great mobility for our people in this Nation.

Other entrepreneurs, such as Thomas Edison and his colleagues, were working on ways to harness electricity for light, sound, telephones, and transportation.

Shortly after that, Charles Baker and his daughter switched on the first electric power generation in the Northwest--something that still provides cheap, affordable electricity to us in the Northwest.

Well, today it is time for a set of new, scrappy entrepreneurs, those who are going to lead in industry and help us get ready for a new energy infrastructure, and to take our country in a new direction. Improvements and changes are desperately needed to retain our standard of living and to make the United States an energy leader again.

Just like 100 years ago, these entrepreneurs are working today throughout our Nation. Farmers, such as those in Minnesota, are now supplementing their income from farm products by putting wind generation on their farms. A California professor is inventing new technology to enable the manufacture, in any industrial park, of new alternative fuel from simple plant material. In Spokane, WA, energy investors are focused on building a smart electricity grid that is going to allow consumers to save more.

What the Government did at the dawn of the last century was to help in the energy transformation. What we need to do today is to enable this energy transformation to take our country in a new direction. We need to embrace the new technologies that keep more energy dollars in America's pocketbook. The next chapter in American's energy story needs to be less about record oil profits and more about how we are going to help the American consumer keep energy dollars here in America and grow the American economy.

It is time Congress and the Federal Government start leading. The longer we put up with the status quo, the farther and farther behind our people and businesses are going to fall, and the more unconscionable the profits oil companies and foreign interests make, the more challenging it is for the United States environmentally, internationally, and economically. America's goal--here on the floor of the Senate, our role as a Government entity--should be to set the goals where our Nation needs to go and how our constituents will benefit.

We should not pick technology winners or losers, but we should make sure there is a level playing field so there is new investment in energy strategies. We are here to put those elements in place that will help catapult America into being an energy leader.

I know many of my colleagues have talked about energy independence. But we are talking about keeping energy dollars in America's pocketbook. I say that because so many Americans are feeling the price at the pump. Right now, they are feeling that price at the pump because America spends $291 billion per year on importing foreign oil. Over 60 percent of our total consumption is coming from foreign sources, and that is only going to increase.

The production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 would help us reduce foreign imports by over 1 million barrels a day. That is why this underlying legislation is so important.

But what should our goal be? Our goal should be a 20-percent reduction in gasoline consumption by 2017. That is what this underlying bill gets at, and that would help consumers achieve a $2.50-per-barrel reduction in world oil prices because the United States would get into the homegrown fuel business. But we have to do more than just alternative fuel; we have to become more fuel efficient. That is why this legislation is so important, because it would actually help us save $25 billion annually to consumers from raising the fuel efficiency standard of automobiles from the current 25 miles per gallon today to 35 miles per gallon.

I know this will be one of the most contentious votes on the Senate floor: whether we have the will to raise fuel efficiency standards for our entire automobile fleet in the United States. But it is the fuel efficiency that will help deliver America that $25 billion in annual savings to consumers and help us achieve that 20 percent savings in foreign oil consumption.

We need to keep putting more energy dollars into America's pocketbook by other means of efficiencies. The efficiencies in this legislation push for standards for appliances, to help make a smart electricity grid that will help us in delivering distributed generation; that is, generation closer to home, so we are not building a new powerplant and transporting that energy supply across several States or across sections of America but, instead, getting generation built and delivered in the closest areas to the consumers. Smart electricity grids and efficient technology will help us save $12 billion in improved efficiency for the U.S. household, which will save U.S. consumers about $100.

These are important improvements. They may not sound like the sexiest parts of our energy package, but there are real dollars and real savings here for America in the long run. If we just take what California did as a State over the last several years--they, by mandating building codes and energy efficiency, reduced their energy consumption by about 20 percent and have one of the best energy efficiency systems in the Nation, and we in the Federal Government should follow.

We should follow as a Federal Government by also achieving energy efficiency for the taxpayers because the U.S. Government is our largest energy user. The fact is, we have over 500,000 buildings in the United States. Making them more energy efficient would give us a 30-percent reduction in the Federal energy use. The President should lead that charge. But we are making sure in this underlying bill that we are mandating new energy efficiency titles led by my colleagues, Senator Boxer and Senator Bingaman, to make sure the taxpayers will get almost $4 billion in annual savings if we achieve these Federal energy efficiencies.

Also, we must protect the consumers from price spikes. We all know that consumers have paid an increased price at the pump and that gas prices are at an alltime high related to where they were just 5 years ago. This underlying bill makes price gouging--the manipulation of energy prices--a Federal crime. To try to manipulate supply and artificially impact markets is something that should have strong criminal penalties, and that is what this underlying legislation does.

We also make sure we are making the right technology investments. I said earlier that technology could help the United States achieve greater efficiency and keep more energy dollars in America's pocketbook. We believe that over $700 billion in increased economic activity can be the result of investment in good energy technology. It could also create more than 5 million jobs here in the United States by 2025. But that means taking the investments that are given to the oil industry now, which is making record profits, and instead investing them in new energy technology that will lead to job creation and energy savings. I know that in the Finance Committee we will be discussing these ideas in the very near future, and I hope they can be implemented with the underlying bill we are going to be considering in the next 2 weeks.

But we have to keep in mind, as we look at the alternatives for creating energy, that we have to be smart about protecting our environment. We want to keep more energy dollars in the

pockets of the American consumers and American businesses, but we will not achieve that if we look for solutions that are actually going to add to our CO2 problems in the United States.

Let's be clear: There are great technologies that will help us in reducing greenhouse emissions. There are others that will be less appealing. I know it will be hard for my colleagues in areas where technology has not yet reached this point to be a market driver. More work needs to be done. But we should not be, in looking at our incentive policies, chasing technology that will not help us achieve the leadership the United States would like to see in fuel technology.

We know that cellulosic ethanol, which is the goal of this underlying bill--and I was proud, in the 2005 act, to write the cellulosic mandate as part of the underlying legislation. Cellulosic--plant-based ethanol--plant-based ethanol from gasoline today would be a 90-percent reduction in our CO2 footprint. We want to go in that direction as a nation, using plants to create a fuel source for America. We want to do that not only for what it achieves for us in reduction of CO2 but because it also doesn't compete with our food source in America and drive up food prices.

Biodiesel, another great reduction in greenhouse impact at 67 percent, is an area in which we can, for our large industrial users, provide an alternative fuel to help our economy grow. Sugar-based ethanol, at 56 percent, as the country of Brazil is doing, is again a reduction in the CO2 and an opportunity to scale a technology to help an entire nation.

We also know that for us, electricity, or plug-in hybrids, could see a 46-percent reduction.

We know we will have a very interesting debate on the Senate floor about corn-based ethanol, and we will have to be honest about where corn-based ethanol can take us in the future. It is not the alternative fuel that will help drive our economy.

We know corn-based ethanol will not be the technology that continues to have the opportunities for us that these other advanced fuels do. So we need to be smart about the investment strategy.

I need to say a little about the coal to liquid or carbon sequestration issues. That technology does not yet exist for the breakthrough we would like to see. It will actually add--add--to our CO2 emissions if people deploy this technology today as a solution for us in trying to get off foreign oil.

So we need to be smart about our plans. We need to make sure we are keeping more energy dollars in America's pocketbook. We need to make sure we get on to this next chapter in American history and make sure we are not continuing 3 years from now to talk about record oil prices but about how American consumers are paying less at the pump, getting more alternatives, and that new jobs are created by the new direction in an energy economy we are about to see unfold.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the high gas prices we are seeing all over America and certainly on the west coast, where Washington State is paying some of the highest gas prices in the Nation.

My point this morning is that we are approaching the Memorial Day weekend in which Americans will be remembering loved one and wanting to spend time with their families, but this Memorial Day might go on record as having the highest gas prices in our Nation's history. That means we in the Senate need to act on energy legislation that not only diversifies us off fossil fuels into more renewables and alternative fuels, as well as pass energy conservation measures, it also means we need to protect consumers with a strong bill that makes price gouging and market manipulation of energy markets illegal. We need to assure that there are tough Federal penalties on the books so that any kind of market manipulations will be met with fines and penalties.

I know many people think this is all just about supply and demand. It is pretty hard to tell the people of Washington State it is just about supply and demand when we have five refineries in the State of Washington and most of our oil comes from Alaska. And people say we are an isolated market. In fact, there are schools in our State that are feeling the brunt. One of the school districts in the Yakima Valley, where buses travel more than 2,200 miles each day, will have to spend about $125,000 more this year on fuel. That is revenue which could go to books or hiring teachers or other needs for the school. In Spokane, the volunteers for Meals on Wheels, which usually delivers 350 meals a day to homebound elderly and disabled residents, are having to cut back on their routes. Another constituent called the office to say he was having trouble paying for gas he needed to make the 80-mile round trip to the Tri-Cities to get kidney dialysis for his wife. That loving husband said he was either going to have to quit his job or move closer to the facility so they could avoid paying high prices of gasoline. So while the pundits are talking about just supply and demand, my constituents and many constituents across this country are feeling the pain at the pump.

It is time that we act and pass the Cantwell-Smith bill, which we will have a chance to do when we return after the Memorial Day recess. This legislation is based on a New York law that has been held up in the courts and gives the Federal Trade Commission the ability to do the job that is needed to investigate potential market manipulation and price gouging. Many of the statutes that are on our books today are inadequate for looking at markets when there is a tight supply.

I heard a great deal about supply and demand during the Western energy crisis. For probably my entire first year in office, that is all we heard about from various people who wanted to say that the Enron problems were nothing more than supply and demand and the failure to build more capacity. In fact, when it came down to it, there was a lot more to this question than lack of supply in California. It turned out that there were elaborate schemes to manipulate energy markets, with names such as Death Star, Get Shorty, Fat Boy, schemes in which people deliberately took supply off line or manipulated it just to drive up prices by suppressing supply.

My colleagues have worked hard in the last several years to put into statute protections for consumers to make sure electricity and natural gas markets are not manipulated. This law is based on the same protections the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the SEC use to make sure there is not manipulation in those markets. Why not have the same protection for consumers as it relates to oil and gasoline markets?

I hope that when we return, we will give great attention to this issue and not be swayed by those who think this is a simple market- demand issue. If we want to protect the consumers of this country, we will pass a strong law that gives the ability for Federal regulators to do their job. I believe there are real U.S. jobs, pensions, and businesses on the line if we do not act and act aggressively. The American people want to know that the Senate is going to stand up and do something about these record gas prices. They want to know that they are paying a fair and market-based rate for fuel and that they will continue to have the transparency in oil markets to make sure prices are reasonable and affordable, and they want to be sure we are empowering the right people to make sure an investigation takes place.

As I said, there is much that we need to do in the near term and the long term for our energy markets to diversify and to give consumers real choice at the pump, to make sure we are investing in conservation and fuel efficiency. But in the meantime, with tight energy markets, we need to make sure we are giving consumers the protection they need and to pass this legislation when we return after the recess.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, I am coming to the floor this morning to talk about energy policy. I know the Presiding Officer very much understands the importance of energy policy and has represented a State in a region of the country that has been a key component to the U.S. energy strategy. My own State, Washington State, with our long history, with our hydro system, is starting to become a leader in alternative energy and certainly in renewable energy.

But I rise today to talk about the beginning of the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue that is an ongoing bilateral forum between the United States and China. I think it will help lay the foundation for important, productive, and mutually beneficial ties between our two countries.

I appreciate that Treasury Secretary Paulson and Vice Premier Wu are starting that discussion today. I hope energy will be among the issues they talk about.

I am under no illusion that we have big challenges in working with China and particularly in embracing a concept I believe is very strategic to how the United States operates in a global economy, that is ``coopetition''--you look at those with whom you are competing and also look for ways in which you can cooperate and have strategic benefits by working together. I think that ``coopetition'' is exactly the policy we ought to embrace with China as it relates to energy, and it is very important we use this Strategic Economic Dialogue to move forward on that issue.

I know they are going to talk about lots of different issues. It is not as if Washington State agrees with China on all issues. I know the currency issue will be part of the discussion. I know there are intellectual property rights and agricultural issues, there are restrictions on Washington products, and many things that will be discussed as part of a larger economic dialogue. But I think it is important to understand the Washington State experience. If you juxtapose our experience to that of the United States, and the U.S. trade imbalance with China, I venture to say Washington State almost has a trade surplus with China. That is, if you look at various aspects of our economic numbers, Washington State and China have been good trading partners.

Back last year, China was the largest export market for Washington State. We sent $6.8 billion in exports to China. Approximately two- thirds of Washington State's agricultural exports went to Asia and 17 percent to China: apples, potatoes, cherries, and a variety of other products. And Washington State companies have been aggressive at pursuing opportunities in China for a long time. I don't know if it is the proximity of our State to China and the fact that we both look to the Pacific, I don't know if it is the large Chinese-American population that resides in the State, or just the long cultural history on which we continue to build. But Washington State companies have been aggressively pursuing opportunities in China for years.

In fact, Boeing signed its first contract with the Chinese Government for 10 707 jetliners in 1972, shortly after President Nixon made his first visit there. It is amazing that today 60 percent of China's commercial aircraft are Boeing planes.

That relationship has grown over a long period of time, and we have benefited. In fact, in 2006 China purchased $7.7 billion dollars' worth of Boeing planes. That represents about 112 orders from different Chinese airlines.

Today China is one of the largest opportunities for Boeing. Some have estimated the commercial aircraft market could be as large as $280 billion.

When we look at these issues, we look at the cooperation and the economic opportunity that has existed for our State. Microsoft is another example. It first opened an office in Beijing in 1992. It is no surprise, when President Hu was visiting the United States, he actually came to Everett and Seattle and Redmond and had an opportunity to be hosted by Bill Gates. Microsoft is benefiting greatly from the sales of computers and legally licensed software in China.

More recently, Starbucks has launched hundreds of stores in China. Who would have thought that a coffee company would go into a tea- drinking country and have so much success. But China represents roughly 20 percent of the new international store growth for Starbucks. It has become Starbucks' most important foreign market.

My point in saying this is that I hope, as we have a debate about currency--and I think it is important that we have a debate about currency--that we also realize that China is a market. It is a market for U.S. products. No export sector could be of greater interest, I believe, than the opportunity in the energy and environmental areas.

Today, China accounts for about 40 percent of the increase in world oil demand. The number of passenger vehicles on China's roads has tripled since 2001 and may equal the United States by 2030. The Chinese face this mass internal transformation from growth and modernization. We have the opportunity to help them with that transition. They are trying to keep pace. In fact, China is adding one huge 1,000-megawatt, coal-fired plant to its grid each week. That is like adding enough capacity every year to serve the entire country of Spain. But even with this new capacity, their country is without predictable electricity.

In 2004, China had power shortages in 24 of its 31 provinces and autonomous regions, so they are dealing with a challenge to deliver energy to various parts of their country.

What is the opportunity? The International Energy Agency estimated that China will spend $2.3 trillion over the next 25 years just to meet its growing energy demands, and that modernizing its electricity grid will require about $35 billion annually for the foreseeable future. That is where American technology can come in; that is where we can seek new opportunities for U.S. companies. In fact, the same International Energy Agency has talked about the fact that, if we institute demand-side management programs where we can leverage modernizing the electricity grid, we can show that investments of $700 billion in the demand side could avoid almost $1.5 trillion in additional generation, transmission, and distribution costs in China between now and 2030.

That is an interesting number. By the United States partnering with China, we would have an opportunity to help them save on their energy costs. What does that mean for us as far as the great opportunity? It means increasing exports of U.S. goods and services. It means U.S. opportunities to grow in the areas that I have mentioned. Good opportunities already exist in aerospace and software and coffee but they also can emerge in the energy and environmental sectors.

It is interesting to think that China realizes that they have a challenge and that they are trying to diversify into an array of more clean energy sources, including wind, solar, biofuels, and clean coal. They are trying to increase productivity and cost savings associated with modernizing the electricity grid.

I happened to visit Beijing last November with a group of Washington State business leaders that were there to promote long-term opportunities for us to work together. It was then that I realized how much the Chinese Government had embraced and was committed to its goal of cutting energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20 percent by 2010. For that very short period of time they have tremendous energy goals that we, the United States, can help them meet.

Modernizing the domestic energy infrastructure will require an estimated $35 billion a year. Again, that is an opportunity for the United States, exporting existing U.S. products and services, that could help us turn around the trade imbalance.

In a speech last month, Premier Wen acknowledged that China must focus on energy conservation and emission reduction in order to both develop the economy and protect the environment. I think this is an opportunity that is before us now as we are part of the Strategic Economic Dialogue with China. Increased U.S.-China cooperation on energy and environment would have tremendous economic, environmental, and security benefits for both our nations. It would help make U.S. companies better positioned for economic opportunities both inside and outside China as we develop standards associated with our energy policy.

I recently sent a bipartisan letter to the President asking for a comprehensive U.S.-China energy policy and bilateral energy summit. I am proud to say that the bipartisan letter, signed by several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Senator Smith, Senator Murkowski, Senator Voinovich--also was signed by the four chairs of important committees--the Energy Committee, Finance Committee, Foreign Relations, and Homeland Security Committee--because I believe that they agree that this is an important opportunity for the U.S. and China to work together. In fact, we said, in sending the letter to the President:

The way we approach global energy issues will affect the

international economy and the world's environment for decades

to come. A bilateral U.S.-China energy policy and a summit

between our nations to focus on ways to cooperate on energy

issues would have tremendous economic benefits for both our

nations.

I hope as the Strategic Economic Dialogue goes forward this week that a great deal of focus will be placed on energy. When one of my predecessors, Warren Magnuson, went to China, he said, ``pretending 700 million people in the world do not exist is the wrong approach.'' Today it is 1.3 billion people. It is time to understand China's internal transformation, our own global energy needs, and our nations' evolving relationship. It is time to see the great promise in our common interests and time to work together on shared challenges and opportunities involving energy and the environment.

I yield the floor.