Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are here today discussing the emergency supplemental conference report, which appropriates over $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Tomorrow we will return to the Defense authorization bill that will include more discussion of our efforts in those countries. The last week had events that this Senator considers very positive: the finalization of a new government in Iraq with the naming of Ministers of Defense and Interior, the U.S. military's success of killing Al-Zarqawi, and the safe return of the President just today from Iraq. While we have had these successes, I think it is important for Congress, as we discuss both the supplemental bill and the DOD authorization legislation, to keep in mind the challenge ahead of us.

While Prime Minister Maliki has moved forward with his new government, we know that national security experts warn that Iraq is still in bad shape. I believe that Congress must do its job in holding the administration accountable as we consider these two pieces of legislation and make sure that 2006 is a year of significant transition in Iraq. That is, specifically, that while we have understood the challenges and mistakes that have been made, that we need to make sure we are moving forward, and we need to make sure we are turning the security efforts over to the new Iraqi Government.

While we have seen some promising developments in Iraq in the last week, we need to remind ourselves that sectarian violence in the last several months has been on the increase, and that the challenge for Iraqi and U.S. forces remains high. The challenge before us as a Congress is to remain vigilant on the accountability of the administration as we consider this legislation I believe is paramount.

U.S. ground forces have been stretched and placed under enormous stress. Sectarian militias are responsible for waves of increasing violence, and there are now over 1.2 million internally displaced persons throughout Iraq. And as I said, while we have had some successes, not everything has gone as planned. There has been mismanagement, contract abuses, fraud in various levels of our reconstruction, and some lack of accountability on exactly how U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent. Electricity and oil production are below prewar levels. This all has to change.

This year the United States has been spending about $8 billion per month in Iraq, and Congress has appropriated to date about $320 billion for Iraqi operations. We need to know where the President is going from here.

Everyone should be thankful that Saddam Hussein is gone, but we should learn from the mistakes that have been made so far and rebolster our efforts to get more international support for what the Iraqi Government and the United States are trying to accomplish. No matter where the world community was prior to the U.S. involvement in Iraq, everyone should rise to help the new Iraqi Government meet our growing challenges. So this Senator wants to make sure that we are reaching out and being effective at a broader international effort.

I call on President Bush to name a special envoy to Iraq to promote regional diplomacy and to make sure the United Nations and the World Bank are fully engaged. The President could name someone with the stature and leverage of former President Bill Clinton or former President George H.W. Bush, who was so instrumental in building an international coalition before the first gulf war. I believe that again today diplomatic collaboration is vital. A special envoy could help garner the international support for both Iraqi reconstruction and security. As I said, regardless of what foreign governments thought about the administration's decision to go to war, everyone should share the same desire to help Iraq succeed as a sovereign nation. The international donor community has pledged approximately $13.5 billion for Iraq and for reconstruction efforts but has only delivered about $3.5 billion of that total. That must change. If nothing else, a U.S. envoy could make its primary mission the financial contribution by these countries to help shoulder the burden of stabilizing this very important region of the world.

Second, I believe the United States should not hesitate in calling a Dayton-like summit with our allies, with Iraqi neighbors, with the United Nations, to make sure we are moving forward on answering any political and security questions that will help in stabilizing the region. We should also support the Arab League's plan to hold its own international conference on reconciliation in Iraq. The international community should work together to help the Iraqis reach a comprehensive agreement to guarantee regional security, protect Iraq's borders, supplant the militias with Iraqi Security Forces, and revive the reconstruction efforts, especially in Baghdad. We cannot allow the political process to drift. The international community must demand that

Iraqis continue making compromises necessary to end the sectarian violence and to make sure that any amendments to the Iraqi constitution, if necessary, take place in short order.

Third, I believe that the United Nations should become more involved. The United Nations should encourage the creation of a U.N. High Commissioner for Iraq similar to the U.N. High Representative for Bosnia, which was created to work with the international community to ensure a peaceful, viable state in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Creating a U.N. High Commissioner of Iraq could open up the doors for countries that might have otherwise been hesitant to participate. The U.N. can call on its wide network of trained personnel and specialized resources, saving U.S. taxpayers money and providing a genuine boost for our efforts in Iraq.

We must also make sure that we are serious about last year's amendment, the Warner-Frist amendment, which declared that ``2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security creating the conditions for phased redeployment of the United States from Iraq.'' We pushed for greater oversight and required the administration to provide Congress with quarterly reports, and while we have received some information, the latest reports have not had sufficient information about sectarian divisions and the risk of civil war and our response to those risks.

The Department of Defense aims to train and equip about 325,000 Iraqi troops and police by the end of the year. I want to make sure that Congress, in our budget process, holds them accountable for meeting these goals. For the sake of the U.S. troops that are on the ground, we must make sure that the Iraqi government knows that we want the security responsibilities transitioned to them. And we must make it clear that the United States is not going to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

I take Prime Minister Maliki at his word. He basically has said that the Iraqi forces could take complete control of security within the next 18 months and that the new Iraqi Government could deal with the militias and that the Iraqi Security Forces would take control as quickly as possible. I think we need to continue to push that issue and to make sure that we are meeting the milestones that will help that to occur as soon as possible.

We also need to make sure that the efforts on reconstruction move forward. The United States should help the Iraqis concentrate on security and development efforts in certain areas to ensure that we are demonstrating meaningful economic progress. I think again particularly in Baghdad.

Protecting the Iraqi people and the civilian infrastructure should be our highest priority. Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds alike must have faith in their government's ability to provide access to reliable electricity, clean water, and proper sanitation.

We must remember that we have to honor our commitment to our troops-- the U.S. military who have sacrificed so much. And no one on the Senate floor will ever forget the awful cost of war. In Iraq, the loss of nearly 2,500 members of our Armed Forces, and I am deeply concerned about the 18,000 that have been wounded.

And just as our troops have been stretched to the limit, it is time for us to realize that our capacity for veterans' health care has also been challenged. Based on credible projections from the independent budget, composed by Veterans Service Organizations, the Federal Government is underfunding veterans' health care by at least $2 billion and the demands on the system are growing.

In March, the VA told Congress they are seeing 38 percent more Iraq war veterans than they had budgeted for. So what is the impact? Some veterans are waiting more than 18 months just to get access to VA health care, and thousands of others across the country are waiting for access to care. As of the last month, more than 2,900 veterans in Washington State were waiting over 30 days to gain access to outpatient care that they deserve and have not been able to get because we have not adequately funded the veterans' health care system.

Some experts suggest that one-third of the soldiers coming home from Iraq seek mental health services, and we need to make sure that we are adequately funding mental health. A lack of capacity in the veterans' mental health system has caused a VA official recently to remark that when it comes to mental health the waiting list renders care virtually inaccessible. I believe this is unacceptable and that we have to do our job and do not shortchange veterans' health care. We must give those who have stood up for us the access to care that they deserve.

The United States must make sure that it does not ever condone indiscriminate or deliberate killings of civilians. The overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform are honorable and understand the rules of war and requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Any accusations of misconduct must be handled fairly by the military justice system. We should also play our oversight role here in Congress and make sure that Congress is not leaving the investigation of this issue simply up to the Department of Defense.

We need to make sure that Congress is also investigating this issue and providing the accountability and oversight that everyone deserves. Whether it is detainee abuse or Haditha, we need to make sure that the U.S. image is not damaged and our efforts to win the hearts and minds both in Iraq and the war on terror are not hurt. We must make sure that we have aggressive oversight and accountability of all agencies of the Federal Government.

The United States should be an example of leadership committed to treating people humanely and abiding by the rule of law and promoting opportunity and a common vision.

I know that recently when British Prime Minister Tony Blair was here, he gave a speech that said: This should be a moment of reconciliation not only in Iraq, but the international community. The war split the world. The struggle of Iraqis for democracy should unite it.

I believe that is what we must move forward on now too as we consider these two pieces of legislation. Congress must be aggressive in its oversight and accountability on these goals for 2006 and in turning over control to the Iraqi people. And we must make sure that we engage the international community to help us move forward in this effort. The United States should lead the way, but it should do so with sufficient international support.

And then I believe we must get on to our larger goals, one that the 9/11 commission recommended to us when it said: Just as we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. If the United States does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us.

So besides these objectives, we need to move forward in fighting terrorism by promoting American ideals.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Wall Street Journal recently reported on a growing phenomenon across the West--towns and cities are struggling to ensure cleanup from decades of environmental contamination on properties formally owned by Asarco, LLC.

For over a century, Asarco mined, smelted, and refined metals at sites across the country, leaving behind a legacy of lead, arsenic, and cadmium contamination in more than 90 sites in 22 Western States. But when Asarco filed for bankruptcy in August 2005 suddenly it became unclear if these contaminated sites would ever get cleaned up. Asarco's outrageous legacy of environmental pollution stretches from Helena, MT, to El Paso, TX, and is estimated to total $1 billion nationwide. That is money that taxpayers, not the polluting company, may now have to pay.

In my State, Asarco operated a 14-acre site in Everett from the 1800s until 1912, and two sites in Ruston, a 67-acre property and the larger 97-acre Superfund site on Commencement Bay. When Asarco declared bankruptcy last August, the citizens of Washington State were left with a $100 million Superfund mess. In Tacoma and Ruston, Asarco contractors abandoned cleanup projects midway through, leaving piles of contaminated soil sitting in resident's backyards. Although cleanup resumed thanks to emergency removal funds from the Environmental Protection Agency, these funds only go so far and eventually taxpayers may have to bear the brunt of the costs.

I wish I could say that Asarco is just an exceptionally bad actor, but there is evidence that the company's irresponsible practices are more common than we knew.

That is why in October 2002, I asked the Government Accountability Office to examine how corporate polluters might be avoiding their responsibility under existing environmental law. I was pleased to be joined in requesting this study by then Environment and Public Works Chairman Jeffords, Judiciary Chairman Leahy, and Superfund and Waste Management Subcommittee Chairwoman Boxer. The report found that the Environmental Protection Agency has faced significant challenges in holding polluting corporations responsible for their environmental cleanup obligations, partly due to bankruptcy laws that allow companies to avoid future cleanup costs on sites that were damaged in the past.

In many ways this report confirms what I feared back in 2002, and what became starkly evident last August, that corporate polluters are using bankruptcy and other regulatory loopholes to get out of their environmental cleanup obligations. The report has a whole section on how ``businesses can organize and restructure themselves in ways that allow them to limit their expenditures for environmental cleanups.'' Whether it is using the shield of bankruptcy to evade their obligations, or engaging in corporate shell games with foreign subsidiaries, the ``polluter pays'' principle should hold firm.

To quote again from the report, ``As a result of EPA's inaction, the federal treasury continues to be exposed to potentially enormous cleanup costs associated with businesses not currently required to provide financial assurances.''

Fortunately, the GAO provided not only a thorough analysis of the problem but also a set of detailed recommendations on how to tackle these abuses. Based on their recommendations, I authored the Cleanup Assurance and Polluter Accountability Act of 2006, which I am introducing today along with Senator Jeffords, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and Senator Boxer, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management.

My bill: Enables the bankruptcy court to examine 10 years of past transactions--instead of 2 years--between a parent company and its subsidiary for evidence that companies transferred assets to avoid environmental cleanup responsibilities; requires the National Bankruptcy Review Commission to evaluate conflicting goals between the bankruptcy code and environmental laws and to provide recommendations for action to Congress; reasserts and expands upon the 1980 requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency develop financial assurance regulations and ensure that businesses maintain appropriate financial assurances, providing evidence that they're able to pay for cleaning up of environmental damage

should it occur; and requires companies subject to financial assurance requirements to report declarations of bankruptcy directly to the EPA with an estimation of environmental damage and an explanation of current and former owners or partners of the facility.

These measures will go a long way toward closing these costly loopholes in our bankruptcy code and protecting tax payers from unjust corporate maneuvering to evade cleanup responsibility at polluted sites.

Communities across the country continue to bear the burden of Asarco's irresponsible behavior. The GAO report confirms that this abuse is not specific to Asarco but is increasingly widespread. It will take many more years to clean up the mess that a few bad actors have left behind. We can't afford to stand by and allow another Asarco to happen. We must not ask the taxpayers to continue footing the bill for others' reckless actions. I look forward to working with my congressional colleagues to enact these protections into law.

Mr. President, the Wall Street Journal recently reported on a growing phenomenon across the West--towns and cities are struggling to ensure cleanup from decades of environmental contamination on properties formally owned by Asarco, LLC.

For over a century, Asarco mined, smelted, and refined metals at sites across the country, leaving behind a legacy of lead, arsenic, and cadmium contamination in more than 90 sites in 22 Western States. But when Asarco filed for bankruptcy in August 2005 suddenly it became unclear if these contaminated sites would ever get cleaned up. Asarco's outrageous legacy of environmental pollution stretches from Helena, MT, to El Paso, TX, and is estimated to total $1 billion nationwide. That is money that taxpayers, not the polluting company, may now have to pay.

In my State, Asarco operated a 14-acre site in Everett from the 1800s until 1912, and two sites in Ruston, a 67-acre property and the larger 97-acre Superfund site on Commencement Bay. When Asarco declared bankruptcy last August, the citizens of Washington State were left with a $100 million Superfund mess. In Tacoma and Ruston, Asarco contractors abandoned cleanup projects midway through, leaving piles of contaminated soil sitting in resident's backyards. Although cleanup resumed thanks to emergency removal funds from the Environmental Protection Agency, these funds only go so far and eventually taxpayers may have to bear the brunt of the costs.

I wish I could say that Asarco is just an exceptionally bad actor, but there is evidence that the company's irresponsible practices are more common than we knew.

That is why in October 2002, I asked the Government Accountability Office to examine how corporate polluters might be avoiding their responsibility under existing environmental law. I was pleased to be joined in requesting this study by then Environment and Public Works Chairman Jeffords, Judiciary Chairman Leahy, and Superfund and Waste Management Subcommittee Chairwoman Boxer. The report found that the Environmental Protection Agency has faced significant challenges in holding polluting corporations responsible for their environmental cleanup obligations, partly due to bankruptcy laws that allow companies to avoid future cleanup costs on sites that were damaged in the past.

In many ways this report confirms what I feared back in 2002, and what became starkly evident last August, that corporate polluters are using bankruptcy and other regulatory loopholes to get out of their environmental cleanup obligations. The report has a whole section on how ``businesses can organize and restructure themselves in ways that allow them to limit their expenditures for environmental cleanups.'' Whether it is using the shield of bankruptcy to evade their obligations, or engaging in corporate shell games with foreign subsidiaries, the ``polluter pays'' principle should hold firm.

To quote again from the report, ``As a result of EPA's inaction, the federal treasury continues to be exposed to potentially enormous cleanup costs associated with businesses not currently required to provide financial assurances.''

Fortunately, the GAO provided not only a thorough analysis of the problem but also a set of detailed recommendations on how to tackle these abuses. Based on their recommendations, I authored the Cleanup Assurance and Polluter Accountability Act of 2006, which I am introducing today along with Senator Jeffords, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and Senator Boxer, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management.

My bill: Enables the bankruptcy court to examine 10 years of past transactions--instead of 2 years--between a parent company and its subsidiary for evidence that companies transferred assets to avoid environmental cleanup responsibilities; requires the National Bankruptcy Review Commission to evaluate conflicting goals between the bankruptcy code and environmental laws and to provide recommendations for action to Congress; reasserts and expands upon the 1980 requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency develop financial assurance regulations and ensure that businesses maintain appropriate financial assurances, providing evidence that they're able to pay for cleaning up of environmental damage

should it occur; and requires companies subject to financial assurance requirements to report declarations of bankruptcy directly to the EPA with an estimation of environmental damage and an explanation of current and former owners or partners of the facility.

These measures will go a long way toward closing these costly loopholes in our bankruptcy code and protecting tax payers from unjust corporate maneuvering to evade cleanup responsibility at polluted sites.

Communities across the country continue to bear the burden of Asarco's irresponsible behavior. The GAO report confirms that this abuse is not specific to Asarco but is increasingly widespread. It will take many more years to clean up the mess that a few bad actors have left behind. We can't afford to stand by and allow another Asarco to happen. We must not ask the taxpayers to continue footing the bill for others' reckless actions. I look forward to working with my congressional colleagues to enact these protections into law.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I am pleased to join the chairwoman of the subcommittee, Senator Snowe, in submitting a resolution regarding the policy of the United States at the upcoming 58th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, IWC. I wish to also thank my Senate colleagues Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Dole, Ms. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Levin, Mr. Biden, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Kennedy for cosponsoring as well.

The resolution we introduce today comes at a time when the United States and other like-minded nations are facing new and intensifying challenges within the IWC to adopt policies detrimental to our stated opposition to commercial and lethal scientific whaling.

In 1982, due to the severe impacts of whaling on the populations of large whale species, the IWC adopted an indefinite moratorium on all commercial whaling. Although Japan, Iceland, Norway, and other countries in favor of commercial whaling do not yet have the necessary three-quarters majority on the IWC to lift the moratorium, for the first time they may have the simple majority needed to control procedure and to adopt resolutions contrary to the longstanding positions of the IWC. Policies that the United States has opposed in the past, such as secret ballots and statements supporting lethal scientific whaling, could be adopted under a simple majority.

As Japan and Iceland have gained support for their prowhaling position within the IWC, they have become even more aggressive in their utilization of a provision in the convention that allows countries to issue themselves permits for ``scientific whaling''. These permits are currently being used to justify killing whales in the name of science and then later selling the meat commercially. More than 9,150 whales have been killed in lethal scientific whaling programs since the adoption of the commercial whaling moratorium, and Japan has plans for a major new program that would more than double its takes of minke whales and expand such whaling to Byrde's, sei, fin, sperm and humpback whales. Furthermore, Japan plans to hunt in the commission's designated Southern Ocean Sanctuary, an area set aside off Antarctica to facilitate whale conservation and recovery.

The IWC has repeatedly stated that such lethal takes are not necessary for scientific research. Sei, sperm, humpback, and fin whales are all endangered species, and hunting these species undermines the IWC's whale conservation program.

As was the case last year, discussions are ongoing in the IWC to establish a framework, or ``revised management scheme,'' RMS, for any future commercial whaling, should it ever occur. In this resolution, we urge the U.S. delegation to the IWC to insist that any RMS negotiations are distinct from decisions on whether to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling and that an RMS contain provisions on accountability, transparency, and compliance. As part of any RMS language, lethal scientific whaling must immediately cease upon the commencement of any commercial whaling. The resolution also recognizes the rights of indigenous people to whale for subsistence purposes and directs the U.S. delegation to reject any attempts to compromise or equate such rights to commercial whaling.

I thank Chairwoman Snowe for her collaboration on this resolution. I will continue to work with my colleagues on this issue to ensure that whales are protected under the International Whaling Commission.

Mr. President, this amendment addresses the diversity lottery program. This is not the asylum program. This amendment is not the H-1B program. This is not the broad immigration program. This is the only program that was added to immigration legislation to try to get diversity from a number of countries that weren't sending immigrants to the United States. This amendment simply says, for those immigrants coming from those countries, let's try to get 70 percent of them to be of the education degrees--technology, math, science--that we need in the United States. That is a benefit to us because those are occupations and expertise which we need. It is also a benefit to those countries as these individuals gain expertise that can later be used in their countries.

I urge my colleagues to support this ``best and brightest'' amendment but still leave diversity for these countries and diversity for those who are nonskilled as well.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that seeks to put America squarely on the path toward energy security for the 21st Century. Today, I am joined by a number of my colleagues in introducing the Clean Energy Development for a Growing Economy, or Clean EDGE, Act.

Mr. President, this legislation is a sweeping proposal that incorporates the ideas of many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. It is our attempt to move America forward, on a pressing issue that--as we've said many times before--poses one of the greatest national security, economic and environmental challenges faced by our generation. I am talking about the issue of energy independence, and what it will take to put America on the right track.

The legislation we are presenting today is the result of a good deal of work within our caucus. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I speak from some experience when I say that developing a cohesive, national approach to energy policy is quite difficult. That is because, in so many instances, there are important issues of regional diversity that can divide us.

Instead of immediately succumbing to those divisions, what we did when we began to work on this legislation was to start with a goal. Like the Manhattan Project that established America as the world's first nuclear power, and the Apollo Project that ensured America won the race to the moon, we recognized that initiatives of this magnitude must begin with a goal. When America sets a goal, America will achieve it. It takes leadership and resolve, and it takes the shared commitment of individual citizens to make it a truly national effort. But make no mistake: the people of the United States will rise to the challenge.

Today, we can no longer ignore the enormous cost of America's dependence on foreign oil. It has become a crisis for consumers; it poses an imminent

risk to our national security; and it jeopardizes our long-term economic competitiveness. That is why we believe that America must strive for an aggressive goal: to reduce our national petroleum consumption equivalent to 40 percent of our projected imports by 2020, or about 6 million barrels of oil a day.

Next, we set out to define agreed-upon principles about the best ways we could jumpstart our Nation's effort to achieve this goal. I am proud to say that we were able to achieve a good deal of consensus on these principles. Today, we sent the President a letter outlining them, which gained the signatures of 42 of my colleagues. These principles boil down to this:

The United States must launch an aggressive effort designed to ensure that an increasing number of new vehicles sold in America can run on alternative fuels--starting with 25 percent in 2010--and must launch a bold initiative to invest in the infrastructure needed to promote real competition at the gas pump.

The United States must ensure that consumers are protected from gasoline price-gouging and energy market manipulation.

The United States must lessen its reliance on fossil fuels and take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions by diversifying electricity sources to include more renewable resources.

The United States Governmment--our Nation's single largest energy consumer--must help lead the transition by adopting the best available fuel efficiency and alternative vehicle technologies to reduce its petroleum consumption by 20 percent over the next 5 years, and by 40 percent by 2020.

The United States must level the playing field for new renewable and energy efficiency technologies by providing incentives for consumers and manufacturers to develop and deploy the next generation of fuel efficient vehicles, and by ensuring that major oil companies pay their fair share in taxes and royalties owed to the American public.

These are the principles that guided us as we crafted the Clean EDGE Act. This legislation is a starting point, as we try to advance the dialogue about what it will take to put America on the path toward energy independence.

There are provisions contained in this bill that we know can garner broad bipartisan support. There are others that may not have been possible to enact, before America started waking up to the costs of our energy independence. And there are other ideas that require broader debate and close scrutiny within the Senate Committees of jurisdiction. The Senate should work its will.

But once again, that is the point of this legislation: to start the process; to jump-start the debate, and outline a vision of where this country needs to go to secure our future.

As we have come together on this side of the aisle in recognition of the need to address the pressing issue of energy security, I know I speak for a number of my colleagues when I say I believe it is possible to come together in a bipartisan manner to pass energy legislation this summer. It is possible, if the Senate decides to put politics and partisan rancor aside. We can roll up our sleeves and get to work on crafting a real energy security plan that brings out the best in America. That process would also bring out the best in the Senate.

So I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in further developing an energy independence plan for America.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that seeks to put America squarely on the path toward energy security for the 21st Century. Today, I am joined by a number of my colleagues in introducing the Clean Energy Development for a Growing Economy, or Clean EDGE, Act.

Mr. President, this legislation is a sweeping proposal that incorporates the ideas of many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. It is our attempt to move America forward, on a pressing issue that--as we've said many times before--poses one of the greatest national security, economic and environmental challenges faced by our generation. I am talking about the issue of energy independence, and what it will take to put America on the right track.

The legislation we are presenting today is the result of a good deal of work within our caucus. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I speak from some experience when I say that developing a cohesive, national approach to energy policy is quite difficult. That is because, in so many instances, there are important issues of regional diversity that can divide us.

Instead of immediately succumbing to those divisions, what we did when we began to work on this legislation was to start with a goal. Like the Manhattan Project that established America as the world's first nuclear power, and the Apollo Project that ensured America won the race to the moon, we recognized that initiatives of this magnitude must begin with a goal. When America sets a goal, America will achieve it. It takes leadership and resolve, and it takes the shared commitment of individual citizens to make it a truly national effort. But make no mistake: the people of the United States will rise to the challenge.

Today, we can no longer ignore the enormous cost of America's dependence on foreign oil. It has become a crisis for consumers; it poses an imminent

risk to our national security; and it jeopardizes our long-term economic competitiveness. That is why we believe that America must strive for an aggressive goal: to reduce our national petroleum consumption equivalent to 40 percent of our projected imports by 2020, or about 6 million barrels of oil a day.

Next, we set out to define agreed-upon principles about the best ways we could jumpstart our Nation's effort to achieve this goal. I am proud to say that we were able to achieve a good deal of consensus on these principles. Today, we sent the President a letter outlining them, which gained the signatures of 42 of my colleagues. These principles boil down to this:

The United States must launch an aggressive effort designed to ensure that an increasing number of new vehicles sold in America can run on alternative fuels--starting with 25 percent in 2010--and must launch a bold initiative to invest in the infrastructure needed to promote real competition at the gas pump.

The United States must ensure that consumers are protected from gasoline price-gouging and energy market manipulation.

The United States must lessen its reliance on fossil fuels and take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions by diversifying electricity sources to include more renewable resources.

The United States Governmment--our Nation's single largest energy consumer--must help lead the transition by adopting the best available fuel efficiency and alternative vehicle technologies to reduce its petroleum consumption by 20 percent over the next 5 years, and by 40 percent by 2020.

The United States must level the playing field for new renewable and energy efficiency technologies by providing incentives for consumers and manufacturers to develop and deploy the next generation of fuel efficient vehicles, and by ensuring that major oil companies pay their fair share in taxes and royalties owed to the American public.

These are the principles that guided us as we crafted the Clean EDGE Act. This legislation is a starting point, as we try to advance the dialogue about what it will take to put America on the path toward energy independence.

There are provisions contained in this bill that we know can garner broad bipartisan support. There are others that may not have been possible to enact, before America started waking up to the costs of our energy independence. And there are other ideas that require broader debate and close scrutiny within the Senate Committees of jurisdiction. The Senate should work its will.

But once again, that is the point of this legislation: to start the process; to jump-start the debate, and outline a vision of where this country needs to go to secure our future.

As we have come together on this side of the aisle in recognition of the need to address the pressing issue of energy security, I know I speak for a number of my colleagues when I say I believe it is possible to come together in a bipartisan manner to pass energy legislation this summer. It is possible, if the Senate decides to put politics and partisan rancor aside. We can roll up our sleeves and get to work on crafting a real energy security plan that brings out the best in America. That process would also bring out the best in the Senate.

So I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in further developing an energy independence plan for America.

Mr. President, in May, we commemorate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, honoring the history, culture and traditions of Asians and Pacific Americans and recognizing their unique contributions to the United States.

First proposed as a 1-week event in 1977, the celebration was expanded to a full month in 1990. May was chosen because of its unique significance in the history of Asian Americans. May 7, 1843, marked the first recorded immigration of Japanese to the United States. May 10, 1869, marked the completion of the transcontinental railroad--a feat that would not have happened when it did without the labor of Chinese immigrants.

The Asian and Pacific American population has a rich history in this country, especially in the Pacific Northwest. In my State, records show the arrival of Asian immigrants as early as the 1860s, while some scholars even speculate that centuries before, Chinese explorers sailed down the Alaskan coast to what is now Washington State. Today, there are over 14 million Asians and Pacific Americans living in the United States, representing 5 percent of the population. In Washington, they make up 7 percent of the citizenry.

Over the past century and a half, Asian and Pacific American communities have contributed significantly to the cultural vibrancy of Washington State. Individuals within Washington's Asian and Pacific American communities have also worked to stand up for justice and make our country a better place. In 1944, Gordon Hirabayashi, a Japanese American student at the University of Washington in Seattle, took a stand against the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II when he refused to obey discriminatory curfew orders. In taking his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, he left a lasting reminder of the importance of standing up for civil rights.

Last month, Washington State celebrated the retirement of one of its most influential Asian American leaders. Bob Santos, affectionately known to many as ``Uncle Bob,'' has for many years, tirelessly dedicated himself to social justice for all. As a founder and executive director of Inter*Im Community Development Association, Bob helped revitalize the International District of Seattle, build the local economy, and secure affordable housing for many of our most vulnerable residents. Under President Clinton, Uncle Bob served nobly and boldly as the Regional Director for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. His selflessness, passion and dedication embody the giving spirit that makes our Asian Pacific American community so strong.

America is a land of immigrants, and our history demonstrates that we are stronger because of our diversity. Over the past century and a half, Asian and Pacific American communities have contributed significantly to the cultural vibrancy of Washington State. However, we can only live up to the promise of our diversity if we recognize the mistakes of our past and give all groups a voice in public discourse. During World War II, 227 Japanese Americans from Bainbridge Island became the first of more than 120,000 people to be placed in internment camps. They departed from Bainbridge Island's Eagledale Ferry Dock which, just last month, became the site of a moving tribute to all affected by this dark period. The name of this memorial is Nidoto Nai Yoni, meaning ``let it not happen again.''

During this year's Asian Pacific American Heritage month, we celebrate a history rich with culture and tradition. In our Asian and Pacific American communities, we must preserve the lessons of the past and recognize the great promise of the future.

Mr. President, Elie Wiesel once told us that ``a destruction, an annihilation that only man can provoke, only man can prevent.'' Our American heritage calls upon each of us to stand up, to speak out, and to act when we witness human rights abuses. As a global leader, the United States has a special and solemn obligation. We must live up to this responsibility.

This week marked both Armenian Remembrance Day and Holocaust Remembrance Day. In the final years of the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, the world witnessed the mass killing of as many as 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children. Five-hundred thousand survivors were expelled from their homes. Our U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau organized and led protests by foreign officials against one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century.

Sadly and almost unimaginably, more human devastation followed. Later years witnessed the Holocaust--the Nazis' systematic state-sponsored persecution and murder of 6 million Jews. In 1945, the U.S. Third Army's 6th Armored Division liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp and the U.S. Seventh Army's 45th Infantry Division liberated Dachau in Germany.

We reflect in order to remember--honoring the dead, pledging never to forget atrocities of the past, and fighting to stop them today. In 2004, then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that genocide has been committed in the Sudanese region of Darfur. A consistent, widespread, and terrible pattern of atrocities and burning of villages continues as the situation in Darfur remains grim. I believe the U.S. must lead urgent international efforts to stop the killing in Darfur. We must act immediately, working with the United Nations, NATO, and the African Union to stop the ongoing violence. We must remain focused and never waver in our fight to bring an end to the genocide.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Guard Equipment Accountability Act. I want to thank my colleagues, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and the co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, who have cosponsored this important piece of legislation.

As a Nation, we have a solemn duty to honor, prepare, and properly equip all of our men and women in uniform.

That includes our Reserves and National Guard.

The National Guard and Reserves represent an essential element of our national defense, confronting our enemies in distant lands and responding to threats of terror right here within our own borders. In Washington State, we face threats from volcanoes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. The National Guard played a critical role in the emergency response following the eruption of Mount St. Helens. We have relied on the civil response capabilities of the Guard to protect our communities from wildfires, floods, and to secure our skies in the uncertain hours after 9/11. More recently, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard responded with urgency and compassion.

There are approximately 30,000 members of the National Guard currently deployed to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. About 500 members of the Washington National Guard are among them.

The men and women who serve in the National Guard are making a great sacrifice, fulfilling a distinct and important responsibility. And we owe them all of the resources necessary to safely and effectively achieve their mission.

Right now, there is simply too much uncertainty and when it comes to maintaining adequate equipment levels for our National Guard.

When our Reserves and National Guard are deployed on operations overseas, they are deployed with equipment from their unit.

While serving abroad, their equipment becomes integrated with the greater mission. As a result, when our men and women return home their equipment does not often return with them.

And too often there is no established plan or process to replace or even track that equipment once it's been left behind. As a result, too many of our National Guard units are left underequipped--lacking the necessary equipment for training or to respond to domestic civil emergencies.

The numbers are clear: According to the Department of Defense, the Army National Guard has left more than 75,000 items valued at $1.7 Billion overseas in support of ongoing military operations.

Last October, the Government Accountability Office found that at the time the Army could not account for more than half of all items left behind and has not committed to an equipment replacement plan, as Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires.

Given the amount of equipment left behind in total, National Guard Units in other States are surely facing a similar situation.

The provisions of my legislation would simply codify provisions of Department of Defense policy that are critical to providing our men and women in uniform with the protection and resources they deserve.

The National Guard Equipment Accountability Act would require a comprehensive report about all transferred equipment. Within 90 days of diverting equipment from any reserve unit to another reserve unit or to active duty forces, the Secretary of the Army or Air Force would be required to report it to the Secretary of Defense.

The report must also include a plan to replace equipment to the original unit. Further, if a reserve unit returns from abroad but leaves equipment in the theater of operations, the Department of Defense would be required to provide a replacement plan for equipment to facilitate continued training.

Finally, my amendment would require a signed Memorandum of Understanding specifying exactly how withdrawn equipment will be tracked and when that equipment will be returned.

Given the current equipment situation, my legislation's provisions are crucial. Our soldiers have chosen to follow a noble and selfless path. We have a responsibility to give our active duty, reserve units, and the men and women of the National Guard, the very best resources so they may fulfill their mission as safely and effectively as possible.

We must do so today and everyday for their sacrifice is immense and our gratitude is profound.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Guard Equipment Accountability Act. I want to thank my colleagues, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and the co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, who have cosponsored this important piece of legislation.

As a Nation, we have a solemn duty to honor, prepare, and properly equip all of our men and women in uniform.

That includes our Reserves and National Guard.

The National Guard and Reserves represent an essential element of our national defense, confronting our enemies in distant lands and responding to threats of terror right here within our own borders. In Washington State, we face threats from volcanoes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. The National Guard played a critical role in the emergency response following the eruption of Mount St. Helens. We have relied on the civil response capabilities of the Guard to protect our communities from wildfires, floods, and to secure our skies in the uncertain hours after 9/11. More recently, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard responded with urgency and compassion.

There are approximately 30,000 members of the National Guard currently deployed to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. About 500 members of the Washington National Guard are among them.

The men and women who serve in the National Guard are making a great sacrifice, fulfilling a distinct and important responsibility. And we owe them all of the resources necessary to safely and effectively achieve their mission.

Right now, there is simply too much uncertainty and when it comes to maintaining adequate equipment levels for our National Guard.

When our Reserves and National Guard are deployed on operations overseas, they are deployed with equipment from their unit.

While serving abroad, their equipment becomes integrated with the greater mission. As a result, when our men and women return home their equipment does not often return with them.

And too often there is no established plan or process to replace or even track that equipment once it's been left behind. As a result, too many of our National Guard units are left underequipped--lacking the necessary equipment for training or to respond to domestic civil emergencies.

The numbers are clear: According to the Department of Defense, the Army National Guard has left more than 75,000 items valued at $1.7 Billion overseas in support of ongoing military operations.

Last October, the Government Accountability Office found that at the time the Army could not account for more than half of all items left behind and has not committed to an equipment replacement plan, as Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires.

Given the amount of equipment left behind in total, National Guard Units in other States are surely facing a similar situation.

The provisions of my legislation would simply codify provisions of Department of Defense policy that are critical to providing our men and women in uniform with the protection and resources they deserve.

The National Guard Equipment Accountability Act would require a comprehensive report about all transferred equipment. Within 90 days of diverting equipment from any reserve unit to another reserve unit or to active duty forces, the Secretary of the Army or Air Force would be required to report it to the Secretary of Defense.

The report must also include a plan to replace equipment to the original unit. Further, if a reserve unit returns from abroad but leaves equipment in the theater of operations, the Department of Defense would be required to provide a replacement plan for equipment to facilitate continued training.

Finally, my amendment would require a signed Memorandum of Understanding specifying exactly how withdrawn equipment will be tracked and when that equipment will be returned.

Given the current equipment situation, my legislation's provisions are crucial. Our soldiers have chosen to follow a noble and selfless path. We have a responsibility to give our active duty, reserve units, and the men and women of the National Guard, the very best resources so they may fulfill their mission as safely and effectively as possible.

We must do so today and everyday for their sacrifice is immense and our gratitude is profound.

Mr. President, I come to the floor and join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been here for the better part of today, discussing the President's comments this morning about energy legislation and about price gouging and about the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission investigation of energy prices.

Many of my colleagues here in this body know how important this is, and how important it is that we move forward. Yet I think we have actually been investigating for months. The fact remains that we need to do a more aggressive job in looking at the issue of price gouging. Fifty-seven Senators here supported legislation in November of last year, giving the tools to the FTC, the attorneys general, and to individuals who are responsible at the Department of Justice to investigate price gouging. It is that same legislation that I think would help us in moving forward today, giving consumers confidence as they head into the summer driving season that we are doing everything in our power to get serious about a Federal price gouging ban and that we are going to make it a Federal crime.

This legislation would create a new ban on price gouging during national energy emergencies, giving the President authority to declare that emergency. It would give the Federal Trade Commission and State AGs and the Department of Justice the ability to levy civil and criminal penalties for proven price gouging up to $3 million and 5 years in jail. And, on an ongoing basis,

it would put in place a new ban on market manipulation and giving false information to the FTC or the Department of Justice.

If you think about it, it is similar to some of the requirements for those involved with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the standards they are required to meet. This bill also gives the FTC the authority to levy fines up to $1 million for each violation of market manipulation, that is the market manipulation and false information prohibitions in this legislation.

Some people would say $1 million for price gouging doesn't sound like a lot of penalties, but this is $1 million for each violation of the market manipulation ban. If you think about it, in the context of the market manipulation that is being discussed right now in the Enron trials, on an ongoing basis there were probably hundreds of instances of market manipulation related to Enron.

My colleagues and I offered this price gouging legislation on the floor and it received 57 votes, so I think it is time the Senate comes together on a very aggressive approach to tell consumers that we will protect them this summer. The reason I say it is imperative we do this now is because for the last 5 years in the West we have suffered through the aftershocks of the western energy crisis. That is, we have suffered the consequences in my State of the market manipulation that Enron engaged in. And five years later, really, we have gotten very little relief from Federal regulators on that issue.

What happens during periods of dysfunctional markets, where there is a lack of transparency, is that many people are hurt. Businesses are hurt, individual consumers are hurt, even school districts are hurt. We had one school district in Washington state that basically had to pay $2 million in additional energy costs because of Enron and manipulated energy prices, and thereby ended up not hiring teachers or buying books.

All this leads to a simple and inescapable conclusion. And that is, when it comes to energy commodities that power our economy, we have to be very aggressive at protecting consumers. We need to do everything in our power right now at the Federal level to put us on the right course and to fashion legislation that will help protect consumers now.

If you think about the President's request, he is saying the Department of Justice and the FTC should investigate. We do not even have the authorities and remedies in current law that would help in pursuing these cases and bring these individuals or corporations to justice if market manipulation is found. So I encourage my colleagues to move quickly on legislation that would give the Federal government the true tools we need to investigate market manipulation and to pursue remedies on behalf of consumers. Let's not wait several months into the summer season, as consumers are already being hurt at the pump, to come to this conclusion.

Since we have already had 57 Senators, a majority of the Senate, support this legislation, why not pass it out of the Senate and give consumers the confidence that, as they hear the earnings reports from oil companies in which they are making billions in profits, we are not going to give them a pat on the back. Instead, we are going to give a helping hand, to protect American consumers at the pump this summer, as these prices are expected to continue to rise.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1735

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1735 and that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of that legislation, that the Cantwell amendment which I am sending to the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will consider this. This Senator will continue to be vocal on passing Federal legislation to make price gouging a crime. I hope this is legislation that we can take up in the next several days, or at least in the next weeks, so we are giving consumers before the Memorial Day recess the confidence that we have serious teeth in Federal legislation to protect them at the pump.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Kerry, and Wyden. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was passed 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 US. history. OPA 90 revolutionized oil spill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank for improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response.

However, in a report and testimony recently provided to Congress, the U.S. Coast Guard identified serious shortcomings in our oil spill management system. First, in a report transmitted to Congress on May 12, 2005, the Coast Guard noted that the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was in danger of being depleted. And they noted that every state or U.S. territory has received money from the Fund for oil spills. Without the Fund, states would have to provide funds for these emergency events.

Through legislation that I cosponsored last year with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, which became law as part of the Energy Policy Act, we solved part of this problem by reinstating OPA 90's per-barrel fee on oil, in order to replenish the Fund, and raising the total level of principal from $1 billion to $2.7 billion. However, the Coast Guard also noted that the costs of oil spills increasingly exceed the liability limits for responsible parties that were set back in 1990. Under OPA 90, responsible parties can be reimbursed for costs above their liability limit from the Fund--and this practice continues to deplete the Fund. This

issue also was highlighted at a field hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard that I chaired last August in Seattle, where the Coast Guard testified that the current limits are too low. The bill I introduce today will increase these caps so that we return to the ``polluter pays'' principle enshrined in OPA 90.

The devastating hurricane Katrina also led to an historic number of oil spills. The Coast Guard has estimated that such spills could amount to close to $1 billion. If these claims are made against the Fund, the Fund will be quickly wiped out. That's why the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would ensure that such claims would be covered through the Stafford Act process and supplemental funding, and not through the regular claims process of OPA 90. Finally, this bill would require improved accountability of how monies from the Fund are expended by Federal agencies.

The Coast Guard also testified in our hearing that we must remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent oil spills. According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oil spills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In fact, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil in 1992, while in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons. 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. And 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, as the recent Athos I incident in the Delaware River and Bay demonstrates.

The bill I introduce today addresses a number of key areas to improve prevention and response. Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oil spills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oil spills from vessels and ``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. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 also would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oil spills from oil transfers. It would also make companies who 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 rescue tug, a central element of the oil spill prevention safety net for Washington state's outer 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 the westerly boundary begin at the entry to the Strait. This change would require oil spill 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 2006 would require improved coordination with federally-recognized tribes on oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. Finally, the bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the Oil Spill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Daleo Passage Oil Spill. My bill would provide $1 million annually to support the Council's important work.

The slow response to the oil spill in Dalco 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 2006 would reinvigorate a federal research program on oil spill 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 oil spills 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.

Oil spill prevention and response is timely for Congress' consideration 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, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, and non-tank vessels.

One thing we've learned from these spills is that it is more cost- effective to prevent oil spills than it is to clean-up oil once it is released into the environment. We've 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 oil spills.

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 oil spills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation.

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

I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleague from Missouri who has played a leadership role in trying to tackle a very difficult problem that is impacting various parts of our country. It is unfortunate the parts of our country that have seen this problem have to come to the Senate and wage this battle to convince people who have not had this problem occurring in their communities how important it is.

I say that because if we do not fight meth and combat it on a nationwide basis, we will see the meth problem continue to grow across the country. That is why this particular amendment is so important.

Two weeks ago we took an important step in combating this crisis by passing legislation to actually authorize a comprehensive program to combat meth across the country and in the Hot Spots Program. In Washington State, we have seen methamphetamine grow, first being the second State in the Union with the number of meth drug labs. Only with a comprehensive approach by law enforcement, prevention, and a variety of people in the community were we able to lower that ranking from second in the country down to fifth in the country. While we have made some progress, unfortunately, we pushed the problem to our neighboring State to the south and Oregon became the No. 1 spot in the country for meth labs.

As we have lowered the number of meth labs being discovered in Washington State, we also saw a different effect taking place, an actual increase in the number of deaths related to methamphetamine. We saw the superlabs coming in, in bigger and stronger positions, trying to continue to move this deadly product through our communities.

What the Combat Meth Act does is provide resources to State and local Governments, law enforcement and investigative teams in shutting down labs, investigating the violent crimes, educating the public, and helping children impacted by this terrible product. In one county alone--the Presiding Officer will understand because it is a neighboring county to his State--in the city of Spokane, 90 percent of identity theft and 70 percent of burglaries are related to methamphetamine. During the bust of meth houses in Spokane County, police find children at least 50 percent of the time. This is a problem that is much more comprehensive in the impact it is having on communities than people realize.

When we have a meth house in a community, it not only impacts that

particular neighborhood and community, but it impacts law enforcement who also have to come in and investigate and clean up the drug labs. We know of law enforcement officers injured from trying to fight this problem by not having the proper equipment when going into these locations.

This is a problem that is not small or isolated or one that is going to be fought and won in 1 year's battle. That is why we need to support this amendment today and continue our efforts, not just authorizing but actually appropriating the resources to fight this problem.

We must continue to be true to what we have said, that we believe this battle is worth fighting and that we are going to provide the resources to do so.

I applaud my colleague from Missouri for his leadership on this issue. I am sure the people of Missouri, as in Washington State and other places throughout the country who have this problem, know how important it is to battle this issue.

It is important we realize a comprehensive approach is showing success. In Washington, we have seen a comprehensive approach has actually educated more people and the public to understand how one use of methamphetamine can be so addicting and lead to such a devastating result, for individuals, families, communities, and to everyone impacted in its path.

I applaud my colleague from Missouri for his leadership. I am glad to join him in this bipartisan effort. I also congratulate Senator Feinstein who has made this a priority, and to our budget leader for his help in this issue.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.