Floor Statements

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment that I think would reverse efforts to manipulate the budget resolution process to pass what I believe is a controversial energy policy. This policy is so controversial it doesn't even meet the bar for what I think is reasonable legislation. It couldn't even gain the 60 votes needed in this body.

I think it is important that we have a continued debate on drilling in Alaska that meets the environmental and permit processes that any drilling in America would have to meet. And that is not what we are discussing in the underlying bill.

My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Feingold, Dayton, Lieberman, Kerry, and others, and would prevent oil and gas exploration and drilling within the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I appreciate that this debate over the Arctic Refuge coastal plain has continued for more than 2 decades. I know the Presiding Officer and my other colleague from Alaska have spent many hours on this legislation. But this issue has continued to stir the passions of many and polarized communities across our country. That is because this debate is more than just about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It is not simply about protecting one of America's last remaining great treasures. Rather, it is a debate that forces us to confront our priorities. It forces us to ask basic critical questions: Where do we go from here on the future of our energy policy? What inheritance do we want to leave our children from an environmental perspective?

We all must realize that God only granted the United States less than 3 percent of the world's remaining oil reserves and we as Americans need to do more with our own ingenuity to become less dependent on foreign oil.

Imagine a future where we don't turn a blind eye to oppressive regimes in the Middle East only because they happen to control the majority of the world's remaining oil reserves, or a future where Americans can drive hybrid or hydrogen-powered SUVs that get 40, 50, or even 100 miles per gallon. That is how we want to see our future. That is how we are going to save consumers who are being hurt at the gas pump today by these unbelievably high prices.

In the future we want Americans to have the opportunity to enjoy and appreciate this unique part of Alaska. That is why I believe the amendment I am offering today talks about our national priorities. That is why this is too important a question to slide into the budget bill. This bill circumvents the processes for permitting and environmental safeguards.

It is ironic that if this legislation passes we will actually be opening up drilling in a wildlife refuge with less protections than any other drilling in any other site in America. So instead of going to greater extremes to protect a particular wildlife refuge, we are going to have the weakest standard. The American people expect more.

I hope my colleagues appreciate that there are many flawed assumptions inherent in this drilling proposal. The simple act of putting a policy on a budget bill itself, I believe, is disingenuous.

But that is not all because section 401 will almost certainly never raise the $2.4 billion that drilling proponents claim it will. That is because the measure presumes to generate these funds by splitting revenues between Alaska and the Federal Government on an even 50-50 basis. But I think my colleagues might be surprised to learn that this 50-50 legislative language may not hold up in court. We just don't know right now. We do know the State of Alaska has long maintained it is due 90 percent of all the natural resource development revenue generated from Federal land within its boundaries, and we know this remains a controversial issue. Some have suggested this proposed 50-50 split in this legislation is merely a ploy to win passage. Some have suggested that once it passes, it will be followed by a court battle from the State of Alaska to force the Federal Government into a 90-10 split of revenue. So this $2.4 billion the United States might receive would be a much different picture.

My colleagues may be interested to know that even in June of this year, the Alaska legislature passed a joint resolution. It stated:

The Alaska legislature opposes any unilateral reduction in

royalty revenue from exploration and development of the

coastal plain of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and any

attempts that could coerce the State of Alaska into accepting

less than 90 percent of the oil, gas, and mineral royalties

from Federal lands in Alaska that was promised at statehood.

That is something that was passed by the Alaska legislature, showing us they have every intention to fight for a 90-10 split.

Later this week I will also offer an amendment that will get at this issue of trying to guarantee a 50-50 revenue split. I hope my colleagues will be recorded on that amendment and show they truly intend to have a 50-50 split and that this not just a ploy in which later the revenue scheme is changed.

I am also concerned that many Senators may not support my amendment because they believe drilling in the refuge can be done in an environmentally benign way. They actually believe we should move forward because they think drilling in ANWR can be done in a way that is environmentally sensitive.

I think they are wrong. There is no real way to sugarcoat the fact that the oil company records on the adjacent

Prudhoe Bay have been shameful. The facts speak for themselves.

According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the Prudhoe Bay oilfields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 504 spills annually--annually--on the North Slope since 1996. Through last year, these spills included more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances, most commonly diesel, crude oil, and hydraulic oil. It takes one spill to permanently destroy a section of this fragile arctic ecosystem. The people know this.

To quote an official from the North Slope city of Nuiqsut:

Development has increased the smog, haze, and is affecting

the health and the beauty of our land, sea, and air.

I can only imagine how devastating that must be for someone whose culture and experience is so invested in the vast open spaces and abundant wildlife.

The news media has reported widely on these issues of oil spills. 2 weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal, and many other papers, have reported on some serious allegations. They have uncovered evidence that indicates there has been intentional dumping of untreated toxic mud, a dangerous contaminated byproduct common to Arctic drilling.

We have seen reports that the owner of an alpine field was forced to pay an $80,000 fine for releasing 215 tons of excess carbon monoxide annually. And, yes, this is the same field that some of my colleagues visited last March, along with the Secretaries of Energy and the Interior. Yet it is not the pristine area. There is already evidence of pollution in that area. This is the same field my visiting colleagues characterize as the cleanest in the world. And I note the Alpine field is just 8 miles from Nuiqsut.

I also want the American people to know that the tradeoff for destroying our Nation's last great wild frontier will not be relief from skyrocketing gas prices. Our sacrifice will do little to decrease our reliance on foreign oils from countries that don't have our best intentions in mind. Here is why. The Energy Department's latest analysis estimates that even when the refuge oil hits peak production 20 years from now, it will lower gas prices by just one penny. A penny, Mr. President. That is not an estimate that I have come up with, that is the Department of Energy's own estimate.

That is not very impressive considering the fact that the constituents in my State of Washington are now paying twice as much for a gallon of gas as they did just 3 years ago.

I also urge my colleagues to vote for an amendment that my colleague from Oregon plans to offer. This legislation would prevent any of this oil from going to foreign markets, such as China. Senator Wyden has pointed out to us and many others, including those in the State of Oregon, that there is no guarantee that the Arctic Refuge oil would ever be used in the United States.

So if my colleagues think if we pass this legislation that somehow it is going to help the United States in the crisis we are in now, the Department of Energy analysis of the very little effect and the fact that this oil will not be kept in the United States are two reasons to support my amendment instead.

Mr. President, the American people feel strongly about drilling in the refuge and other protected areas of our country. They want to know that the Senate is working to pass appropriate legislation that manages these unique areas in a forthright and open manner. Our Nation must continue to preserve and protect the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I understand that some of my colleagues believe it is appropriate to sacrifice this area for what will amount to about 6 months' oil supply, but I think all Senators today agree that these are questions that are not part of a budget policy. They are more fundamental about the discussions of what our national energy policy should be and the future of our country.

I hope my colleagues will also begin to finally start focusing on energy policies to diversify off fossil fuel, to recognize that God gave us only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and that the best interest of the United States is to diversify off fossil and plan for a future that lowers gas prices, plan for a future that makes us more secure on an international basis.

Yes, I will.

Mr. President, I don't know what the agreed-upon order is this morning, whether we are supposed to use an entire hour or if we are going back and forth. I am happy to have the debate go back and forth and yield to my colleague.

I do.

Mr. President, I am going to yield to my colleague, Senator Feingold. Before I do, I point out there is a misrepresentation that somehow drilling in ANWR only covers a small area. Drilling in the refuge will really create a spider web of industrial activities over the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain, so it is much larger than just a small footprint.

This legislation might also open up nearly 100,000 acres of native land on the Arctic coastal plain. So it is a much bigger impact than my colleague might have commented on. I want to make sure that point is clear.

The other issue is, I don't think there is anybody in America who still believes our future and the future security of America depends on fossil fuel. I have seen the television commercials from the oil industry. Even they are always talking about the future, and alternative fuels, and what they are doing to diversify our nation's energy supplies. I certainly hope they hurry up and do that because the high price we are paying at the pump and their exorbitant profits are not leading us to a better economic situation in America.

But at the same time, I don't think Americans believe our investments in the future should be about fossil fuel, they should be about diversifying to cleaner, more fuel free supplies. Instead we are now asking them to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a very small amount of oil.

My colleague talked about a large number of jobs that may result from this. However, we have all heard the expectations for an energy economy of the future that invests in alternative fuels and various renewable energy sources. Some of those job investments can be more than 3 million jobs in America.

That is the energy economy that we want to see--not holding on to the past and exorbitant energy costs which the Department of Energy says is only going to give us a 1-penny reduction in gasoline prices--to get off fossil fuel.

I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Connecticut 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Collins, Mikulski, and Jeffords be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2358.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

I yield to the Senator 3 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, through the Chair, if I could inquire what the Senator from North Dakota is trying to propound in the unanimous consent request?

I thank the Senator.

I would like to go over what I think are the important reasons we should not drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and why my colleagues should support the Cantwell amendment to strike this language from the Budget Reconciliation Act.

As my colleagues have said earlier, we should not be doing this in the Budget Reconciliation Act, and it really does set a precedent for what I hope is not further attempts to drill in other parts of the United States, whether it is off the coast of Washington, the coast of Florida, or anywhere else by simply thinking you can come to the budget process and open up drilling in various parts of the United States. It is a very dangerous precedent. It also lays aside very important environmental regulations that should be met by any drilling efforts in the United States. So here we are, about to allow drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and it is going to have the less protection than any other public land.

Let me go through the 10 reasons I think we should not be doing this.

First, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge does not solve our current gasoline or heating oil supply problems, and I guarantee you, my colleagues are going to hear a lot about home heating oil and other problems when they go home after we break for this year and people see their high heating bills and the enormous cost increases they are paying. So this is no solution for our immediate problem. In fact, even if oil were flowing today from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, who is to say that OPEC would not lower its supply and keep prices high? Moreover, the fact we are talking about something that is not going to happen for 7 to 12 years from now is clearly not going to help us in the near term.

Second, the oil supplies in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge are not going to help us be any less dependent on foreign oil. We already know that our biggest problem is that this country is 50 percent dependent on foreign oil, and moving forward in the next 15 years that dependency will grow to over 60 percent. To me, that says the way to get off fossil fuel and foreign consumption is to diversify, something this bill is certainly not doing.

The third issue is that we really do need to get off fossil fuel. So how are we going to do that? That answer is that we need to diversify into alternative fuels, such as Brazil and other countries have done, to look at a biofuels strategy and become more self-sufficient. The United States only sits on 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. To plan a strategy that continues to focus on this is just shortsighted.

Fourth, drilling in the Arctic will not translate into savings at the gas pump. Let me repeat that. It will not in the near term translate into savings at the gas pump. The Energy Department, its own energy information administration, said that even when the Arctic Wildlife Refuge oil supply is at peak production, it will only reduce gas prices by a penny a gallon. So we are going to open this pristine wilderness area for a penny a gallon 20 years from now.

Moreover, I believe it is important for my colleagues to get about the real debate and pass legislation that focuses on the price-gouging activities that could be occurring in America. Instead of passing this on a budget bill, why don't we bring up by unanimous consent or on some other piece of legislation a price-gouging bill that gives the Federal Government the same power that 23 States have in prosecuting oil companies or others who are involved in manipulating the price of gasoline at the pump? That is what we should take extraordinary measures in the Senate to do, not this.

Fifth, there is no guarantee that the oil from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge will be used in the United States. My colleague, Senator Wyden, I am sure is going to talk more about this issue, but there is nothing under the current laws and regulations that is going to say that this oil is going to stay in the United States. So as my colleague from Illinois said, here is this product we are going to get from a wildlife refuge, and there is no guarantee that it is going to help our national security at all, that it won't be exported to the highest bidder.

Sixth, oil leasing in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge will not bring significant revenues to the Federal Treasury as a certainty. Right now, there is a big debate. There is a debate between the State of Alaska and the Senate about how royalties from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge should be divided. The State of Alaska has been very clear. They think they get 90 percent of those royalties. This bill tries to say they are going to get 50 percent. We know the State of Alaska is going to pursue that in court. The difference is a lot of money. If Alaska is successful, that means they will get 90 percent of the revenue assumed by this budget bill. This proposal says that the United States might get $2.4 billion. The State of Alaska is saying: No, no, no, you are only going to get $480 million. The difference between $480 million and $2.4 billion is a lot of money, and I would like to see clarity that if this have to happen we are not going to move forward without the guarantee that, in fact, we are going to see 50 percent of that revenue.

Seventh, the oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as one of my colleagues said, is about giving the oil companies something more of profits. The notion that they have had $30 billion in profits in the last quarter--$30 billion in profits in the last quarter--and yet they are not helping to diversify at a time when it is very clear to the American people that being overdependent on foreign oil and fossil fuel in general is not the right direction for our country.

Eighth, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will harm its ecosystem. Wildlife is going to be harmed. The fact that people think these things can work together is amazing. We should consider the reason the Wildlife Refuge was established in the first place, because it is a unique area. There is a lot of drilling that goes on in Alaska and a lot of area that is consumed by this. The original designation of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge was for the purpose of preserving this area.

Ninth, drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge cannot be assumed to be environmentally benign. I know my colleagues would like to think that. But the fact is, in Prudhoe Bay and the oilfields of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, there have been 4,532 spills from 1996 to 2004. In fact, the current rate of reportable spills on the Alaska northern slope is about 1 every 18 hours.

My colleagues would like to say this can be done in an environmentally sensitive way or that the environment is not going to be impacted. I don't believe that is true. I believe the number of oil spills that have been reported show that is not the case.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of the recent North Alaska oil company fines and penalties, the amount of money in penalties that have been paid by various companies over the last couple of years for either clean air violations or pipeline leak detections or other reasons for which various oil companies have been fined.

Mr. President, lastly, on these reasons why we should not move forward, is the notion that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a symbol of this country's desire to protect and preserve wildlife areas and that somehow people would like to assume that long- term damage has not already been done to other parts that have been opened up for drilling.

In fact, a Environmental News Service article that summarizes a 2003 National Academy of Sciences report that says for three decades of oil drilling on the Alaskan North Slope, while it has brought economic benefits, for sure, it has also caused lasting environmental damage ``and a mixture of positive and negative changes to that area.'' The report found that some environmental damages will last for centuries.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I think it is known that the environmental damage to the region has been done, that leaks and clean air issues are prevalent in the area, that oil companies are being fined for those violations, and that we cannot just go about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and think we are solving our problems.

In fact, I would like to show my colleagues a copy of a map of what we are talking about. Here is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Here is the rest of northern Alaska. One can see the various designations of existing Federal and State leases. The active Federal leases are in yellow. This is the area under discussion. So all the rest of Alaska in this particular area--in yellow and red, and even in this beige, proposed Federal leasing plan--a lot of territory that is already involved in oil and gas production. Why not leave this last slice of Alaska's Northern coast alone and pristine?

A Washington resident, just to give my colleagues an idea, actually took some pictures of this area of the wildlife refuge. One can see it is a very pristine area with wildlife and streams running through it. We can imagine why someone wanted to preserve this area and why it is so important to the United States.

This happens to be, in my mind, a pretty infamous picture because when my colleague, Senator Boxer, and I were on the floor discussing this issue a few years ago, there was a copy of this picture that was at the Smithsonian, part of an exhibit done by a Washington photographer, a retired Boeing engineer who visited this area and took some pictures and had a public display at the Smithsonian. As soon as these pictures were used on the floor of the Senate, somehow his exhibit was sent to the basement of the Smithsonian and got a lot less attention because somehow, I guess, this picture portrays for the American people something some people didn't want to see or didn't want to have advertised so specifically.

Here is another picture of the area that depicts what an unbelievable, pristine resource this is for the United States. We can see how delicate the ecosystem of this region is and how challenging oil drilling activity in this region can be.

I say to my colleagues that I believe the American people, and certainly the news media around the country, have gotten the gist of what this debate is about because they have expressed their opinions about this as well. I think they have been right on track about this issue. I would like to talk about some of those opinions.

The Milwaukee Journal Newspaper said:

. . . This effort may succeed, not because it's good public

policy but because supporters are trying to sneak it into a

budget reconciliation bill . . . supporters of good

government should not allow that to happen.

That is one newspaper in the Midwest.

Another from the South, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

. . . As always, drilling advocates are using distortions and

half-truths, claiming that awarding extractive leases on

protected lands will significantly reduce the Nation's

dependence on imported oil while having minimal impact on the

region's fragile ecology.

That from a newspaper in the South.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer, another newspaper that has followed this issue. I thought they hit it right on the head in today's debate because they say:

Congress has wasted years trying to enact this single

proposal when, by now, ingenuity and investment in technology

could have developed better answers. Whether the United

States drills in the Arctic Refuge or not, this country has

no comprehensive plan to wean itself from oil. That's what's

really needed.

If I can finish for a second, and then I will yield to the Senator to make his request.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is a summation of what this debate is about. We have debated this for years, and the reason it has been contentious is because a lot of people have concerns about this direction and proposal. But now to do this on the budget where the environmental safeguards that are applied to other drilling, where the NEPA process and other safeguards are ignored, where we are not sure what oil revenue the United States is really going to get to recognize in this budget, when we don't know whether we are going to keep this oil for economic security reasons, I agree with the Sentinel which said:

The reconciliation bill should be used to settle budget

matters, not to abuse the public's trust.

I will yield now to the Senator from North Dakota for his proposal.

How much time remains on each side?

On each side?

Mr. President, I'll take a few moments as I wait for my colleagues to come to the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent Senators Durbin and Salazar be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a National Congress of American Indians resolution that states their opposition to opening up drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. President, while I am waiting for some of my other colleagues to speak, I point out a couple of things about this process. I showed a chart earlier that Americans across the country, and certainly the news media covering this, say this budget process is not the way to go about the opening up of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. More importantly, there are issues that are precedent setting and raise concerns such as, do my colleagues want to debate the fact that they think 50 votes versus 60 votes is the way to do this policy?

As a Senator from a State that now has to endure a survey for drilling off the coast of Washington, off the coasts of Oregon and California--and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been discussing opening drilling off the coast of Florida--this policy in the

underlying reconciliation bill is a very dangerous precedent. That is, that if you can go to a budget process and open up drilling, why can't you open up drilling in any other part of the country through this process?

I guess it is no surprise that the House of Representatives has actually already moved on legislation trying to open up drilling in other areas of the country. It is not a fantasy on my part that other Members of the other side of the aisle could be promoting drilling and could use a budget process for the same maneuver being used here. It sets a very bad precedent, a backdoor scheme.

Because what we are basically saying is that those oil interests are above the public interests, and they do not have to meet the same requirements. For example, the National Environmental Protection Act. I have heard a lot about Scoop Jackson today. My colleagues should remember who wrote the National Environmental Protection Act and got it passed. It was Senator Scoop Jackson. We are very proud of that. Why would we take NEPA and limit the alternatives that could be considered under this bill for proposal impacts to the environment? That is what it does. By throwing this language in the budget resolution instead of a normal process, we are limiting NEPA. We are limiting judicial review. Why should we limit judicial review? We do not do that in other areas of oil drilling, but for this more pristine of areas we will limit judicial review? All because we are doing it through the Budget process.

We will also be limiting the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Aren't they an integral part of planning for production in various parts of the country? Why can't current Bureau of Land Management regulations that provide for the Fish and Wildlife Service be used to provide for the protection of fish and wildlife? The answer is the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service are out of their normal role because we put this in the budget process.

What about compatibility? Why does this legislation assume that oil and gas activities cannot be undertaken in a manner compatible with the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?

Transportation. The chairman has removed consideration in this underlying bill authorizing oil and gas from the coastal regions, which is unusual language considering there is a whole range of issues, including pipelines, ports, and systems. Again, NEPA, judicial review, Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, transportation, and other compatibility issues are not being addressed because we are throwing this in the budget process.

What about the leasing provisions? I have talked a lot about this and I would love it if my colleagues from Alaska would support an amendment I plan to offer that specifies this cannot go forward until we verify that it is a 50-50 split or that it isn't going to go forward. This Senator would love to know that my colleagues from the other side of the aisle are so certain this is going to be a 50-50 revenue split that they are willing to support clarifying in the language that the actual opening up of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge cannot go forward unless it is a 50-50 split. If they are so certain that is going to happen, they should be willing to support my amendment.

As far as the economic issues, I guarantee my State constituents know very well where their oil comes from. In fact, that has been the big complaint for a good part of the last 36 months, the fact that the FTC and other entities keep reminding the Northwest they are an isolated market getting oil from Alaska, yet our prices have gone up to over $3 a gallon.

My constituents, who are getting squeezed at the gas pump, want two things. They want us to have a price investigation and make sure that price gouging is not going on and do something to protect them. And, two, they want something that will bring true competition to the price of fossil fuels and help them in not facing high fuel costs in the future.

Even the Energy Department says it is not going to help my constituents. The Energy Department says in the peak years of production it would reduce prices a penny a gallon. I guarantee my constituents want more than a penny a gallon reduction in gas prices. They are not going to wait 20 years to get that. My constituents want to see real action on a price-gouging bill that we can push out of here that gives the authority to pursue the activities of record profits and make sure price gouging is not going on. They want us to get about diversifying the sources of energy we use.

Diversification will mean a lot to our economy. I can say high gas prices are costing our economy today plenty. If you want to talk about the airline industry, which has seen a 293-percent increase in fuel costs over a 5-year-period of time, yes, there are people in Washington State who are losing their jobs because of that. They want aggressive action today. They do not want to see 10 years from now 6 months of an oil supply that is not going to help them.

I want my constituents to understand a budget process that is a backdoor scheme that basically does not leave them any better off today or in the future than they are today is not a responsible solution to our energy needs. They want to see us truly come up with something that is going to get us diversified off our dependence on fossil fuels. With 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, the writing is on the wall. The United States needs to take a more aggressive action than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I remind my colleagues what the Milwaukee Journal pointed out:

The reconciliation bill should be used to settle budget

matters, not to abuse the public's trust.

That is what we are doing in this bill, trying to pass a wildlife refuge off as an oil field drilling opportunity when we are not addressing important issues. We are not addressing the environmental protections, the judicial review, fish and wildlife, the transportation issues, or the Native Alaskan issues.

We are setting down a very dangerous precedent. I don't want to see the same gimmick used for Washington State, for Florida, or other areas when this Senate thinks by sticking something in a reconciliation bill they can open up leasing of oil in the United States.

Some of my colleagues, I know, are going to talk about an important issue as part of this debate, whether this oil that is produced out of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge should remain in the United States. If this Senate believes this debate is about oil and making America more secure, getting off of our 50-percent dependence on foreign oil is what we need to do. To do that, most people will say we have to get off the fossil fuel consumption.

If my colleagues who want to support this amendment want to drill in Alaska, they ought to be willing to say the oil ought to stay in the United States. If you think it is part of our national security plan, then say it is part of our national security plan and keep it in the United States. I would go further to even say, why not create a refined product, like a jet fuel reserve, as they have in Europe? The Europeans figured out jet fuel is expensive. They have not only a strategic petroleum reserve, they have a jet fuel reserve. They figured out they do not want their airline industry subject to and their economy ruined by sudden price spikes.

I would go further than many of my colleagues in saying not only can the oil not be exported, let's put it in a specific reserve dedicated to a particular, important sector of our U.S. economy--transportation and aviation.

I look forward to my colleagues who, in committee, did not think it was such a great idea, who certainly thought that oil should be exported, who now say it shouldn't be. I am glad to see that change of opinion if that is what is going to happen in the Senate. This budget process is a backdoor end to opening a 6-month oil supply we will not see for 10 years and will not do a darned thing to help consumers now or when it is at peak production.

We shouldn't fool the American people by giving them false choices in what is not a solution, and false budget choices when we cannot even guarantee to them the $2.4 billion that is assumed in this budget.

The difference between Alaska winning and the United States winning on this debate is the difference between $2.4 billion and $480 million. So I hope my colleagues, besides looking at this

export issue and saying this oil should stay in the United States, will also look at the commitment in saying that, yes, we only think this should be opened up if the United States actually gets $2.4 billion. Because otherwise this whole scheme is a matter of false choices, false budget choices, false security choices, and false choices for the consumer. In the end, Americans are still paying high energy prices.

Mr. President, while my colleagues sort out who is going to potentially offer a second-degree amendment, I will yield the floor to discuss with my colleagues that process.

Mr. President, I ask how much time is left on each side.

Well, it is my understanding that one of my colleagues wants to offer an amendment that was part of the previous unanimous consent agreement. I would ask unanimous consent, until they figure that out, that time during a quorum call be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. President, I am happy to debate whatever amendment. Part of the previous consideration was to have a debate on a related amendment. I do not know where the Senator is in offering that amendment. Do we have a time period in which he might--if I can inquire through the Chair, does the Senator who is controlling the time on the other side know when the Senator might be available to offer his amendment?

Mr. President, I think my colleague from Oregon, who has been a champion on this issue throughout the committee process, is prepared to call up the Wyden-Talent amendment and to speak on it at this time.

How much time does the Senator from Oregon wish to have?

Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Oregon 7 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Is the Wyden amendment the pending amendment?

Mr. President, does the Senator from Oregon wish more time?

I will make a couple of comments in closing as we sort out the last on the Wyden-Talent amendment. This budget reconciliation act, as it stands now, without the Cantwell amendment striking the ANWR language, is a false promise to the American people. It is a false promise that they are going to have cheaper gas prices now or significantly cheaper gas prices in the future. It is a false promise on the amount of revenue that is going to be raised in the budget. It is a false promise that somehow this can be done in an environmentally sensitive way and that the area we have called for so long the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge can be preserved as it is. It is a set of false promises, and the American people deserve better. They know this is a time in which our country should be making serious plans to diversify our overdependence on fossil fuel and change, and they certainly don't want environmental considerations that have been long the standard for oil drilling in America to be tossed aside by a budget resolution.

They certainly don't want the fact that there have been, as one organization, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said, 405 spills annually in the North Slope since 1996. They don't want to continue the trend in Prudhoe Bay and other Trans-Alaska Pipeline areas of causing 4,532 spills since 1996. The American people want to have responsible production moving forward that meets the standards that production in America has lived by. That is, by the same standards of the National Environmental Protection Act, judicial review, fish and wildlife, transportation issues, compatibility issue, protection of indigenous rights. They don't want a backdoor gimmick into helping the oil companies, who have already been making record profits, continue to make record profits on something that is going to offer very little for the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment and to support the Wyden amendment when it comes up so we can be true to this issue and say we don't want to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge as a way to get out of our problems. We want to make an investment in the right process and have oil companies live by the environmental standards they are required to today.

With that, I yield the floor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I call up amendment No. 2241 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to honor the life of Rosa Parks.

Let's ask an impossible question: Who was Rosa Parks?

Rosa Parks was a seamstress. She was a community organizer. She was an activist and a leader. Rosa Parks was a carpenter's daughter and a barber's wife. She was a hero of the civil rights movement. She was a trusted Congressional aide and a respected youth development expert.

And of course, Rosa Parks was the inspiring protagonist of a stirring American tale. Protest, reform, and reinvention marked the early pages of her great human story. On December 1, 1955, on a bus in Montgomery, AL, Rosa Parks, a black woman, refused to stand up and give her seat to a white man. She was arrested, tried, convicted, and fined for her act of civil disobedience in less than a week. The citywide boycott inspired by her actions would last more than a year. The full impact of those events would change a nation, last a lifetime, and reach far beyond.

Rosa Parks has played a guiding role not only in the lives of countless individuals but, over the last half-century, in the shape of our ever-evolving Nation. Throughout it all, she has been a great American teacher.

From Rosa Parks, we learned what it takes to be courageous in the face of oppression and hate. From Rosa Parks, we learned that sometimes to be strong is to say ``No.''

From Rosa Parks we learned that freedom without equality is no freedom at all. And from Rosa Parks we learned that fighting the bonds of orthodoxy and confronting the sources of ignorances is a noble and urgent cause.

Rosa Parks' legacy reminds us that a lone person can effect great change; many people working together with united purpose can achieve even more.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the young Montgomery preacher who helped to transform Rosa Parks' act of resistance into a powerful movement, would later say the ``arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.''

If we are to honor the legacy of Rosa Parks, we must never rest in our pursuit of that justice.

I object.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I would like to enter into a time agreement to speak on this amendment.

Thank you.

Amendment No. 2077

Madam President, I do rise to support the Reed-Collins amendment to further make a down payment on the low-income energy assistance program known as LIHEAP.

This is a program the State of Washington knows all too well. I say that because our State was hard hit by an energy crisis in the last several years that left many low-income people suffering the consequences of high energy costs. If anything, the Northwest is a poster child for what is about to happen to the rest of the country. Those results were devastating. In one county alone, Snohomish County, where I live, we had a 44-percent increase in disconnect rates in 1 year. That meant 14,000 people lost power to their homes because of high energy costs.

Those high energy costs were also passed on to school districts, which had to choose between hiring teachers and getting books and paying the high cost of energy. It also had an impact on economic development. Businesses decided that perhaps they did not want to move to that county if they were energy-intensive users and businesses on low margins until the energy rates come down again. We saw people who actually lost their jobs and lost their pensions because of those high energy costs.

What this amendment does, added to this bill, is to give the consumers in America who are the most hard hit by energy costs some relief. If you think about it, we are talking about the elderly, the disabled, those who are on low incomes. We are talking about an individual who may make less than $12,000 a year or a couple who may make less than $16,000 a year. Now they are faced with anywhere from a 30- to 50-percent increase in energy costs. It is a question as to whether they are going to be able to keep the lights on and the heat in the home or whether they are going to be left out in the cold by this administration and by this Congress.

I hope my colleagues will do the right thing in adopting the Reed- Collins amendment and being serious about LIHEAP, knowing the devastating consequences of the high cost of energy to our economy and people on the margins. It is heartless to think we would continue to adopt resolution after resolution dealing with other impacts to our economy and leave those most vulnerable out in the cold.

The LIHEAP Program serves a very small percentage of the people who actually qualify. Last year, 72,000 Washington State residents received assistance from the LIHEAP Program, but many more could actually qualify. That is, there are many more who are living on the margins who need that kind of help and assistance to stay in their home.

Last week, I met with a woman who has lung cancer, the mother of five, who is disabled, who needs the LIHEAP Program to continue to remain in her home. Yet 76 percent of those who qualify who will not get aid. This piece of legislation will not help all of them, but it will help a small percent. It will help a small percent of Northwest residents who will be battling the high cost of energy again for another year in a row, to get some assistance from the low-energy income program.

This amendment should be a top priority for the Members of this body. I say that because, having fought to get these LIHEAP Programs from the contingency fund in the past when my State was greatly impacted, I know how important it was to the residents who actually received them. Now the rest of the country is going to be impacted by those same dynamics of very high energy costs. The question is whether we will, as a body, approve the Reed-Collins amendment to actually take the appropriations level up to the level that has been in the authorizing bill. I think it is the prudent thing to do. I think it is the wise thing to do to help the residents of this country, who are going to suffer from a very tough winter and high energy costs.

I, like my colleague Senator Reed, want to fight for other legislation that will help us reduce the high cost of energy and certainly look at the practices of predatory pricing. We need to give consumers the confidence that there is competition in the marketplace, that there are Federal agencies that will protect consumers from price gouging, and that those who participate in price-gouging activities will spend time in jail. But in the meantime, as we are continuing to push and fight for that legislation, we need to make sure those who are most vulnerable in our society get the help and support they deserve. So I hope my colleagues will take the Reed-Collins amendment this afternoon and realize we cannot give tax breaks to others and leave those most vulnerable in our society without the hope of a warm, secure winter.

America can do better. We can take care of the elderly, the disabled, and the low income when it means they are going to have to pay exorbitant energy costs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words in honor of the Latino communities of the United States. As my colleagues know, September 15 to October 15 each year marks Hispanic Heritage Month. Throughout this month, the United States celebrates the history, culture, and traditions of Latinos as well as their contributions to the United States. September 15 was selected as the first day for this special month because it marks the anniversary of independence for Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Mexico and Chile also commemorate their independence days during the month, on September 16 and September 18, respectively.

As we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, we must also acknowledge the challenges faced by this community. The Latino population is extremely vulnerable to economic downturns and experience high poverty rates, particularly among working families with children. We must work to continue providing the infrastructure to assist families by strengthening job training, child care, child nutrition, and transportation. Furthermore, we must continue to lift the barriers on education. Only 12 percent of Latinos have graduated from college. As nearly half of the Latino population is under age 25, it is crucial that we provide access to higher educational opportunities. The Latino community in the United States strives to succeed in all realms. Providing a solid educational foundation for the younger generation will ensure continued growth and accomplishments by the community.

Today, there are 39.9 million Latinos in the United States, which is nearly 14 percent of the total population. Latinos live in every State and are vital contributors to every aspect of the future of our Nation. My State of Washington is home to the 10th largest Latino population in the United States. Fourteen percent of Latinos work in managerial and professional occupations. Twenty-one percent work as operators and laborers, and another 22 percent work in service occupations. Not only are Latinos the fastest growing population in the United States, they are also the fastest growing group amongst small business owners. In the past two decades, the number of Latino-owned businesses has grown by over 600 percent.

Such facts about the achievements about the Latino community should not be surprising, as contributions by Latinos can be traced back through the history of the United States. On March 27, 1513, Juan Ponce de Leon's travels led him to a land he named ``La Florida.'' In 1541, Hernando de Soto became the first European to discover the Mississippi River. Mexican and Spanish voyagers explored the Pacific Northwest as early as 1774. Joseph Marion Hernandez, a member of the Whig party, served as the first Latino Congressman between 1822 and 1823. In 1962, Cesar Chavez established the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers. These examples further evidence that the history of the Latinos in the United States is an integral part of our history as a Nation.

I am pleased to have this opportunity of Hispanic Heritage Month to give thanks to and honor the Latino community. The accomplishments by Latinos throughout the centuries and their significant influence on our Nation today are cause for celebration.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. As we mark the 11th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which has given a voice to the thousands of women and children who had silently suffered the effects of domestic violence, we must continue to build on these protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The enactment of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act symbolized a significant Federal response to the problem of violence against women. The original act rewrote Federal criminal law in several respects, including creating penalties for interstate stalking or domestic abuse, strengthening penalties and requiring restitution for repeat sexual offenders, rendering a victim's past sexual behavior inadmissible in Federal cases, and allowing a Federal judge to order HIV testing of alleged rapists. VAWA also created a grant program to improve law enforcement in cases of violent crimes against women, rape prevention and education programs, and funds for battered women's shelters. Earlier this year, my home State of Washington received a grant of over $2.3 million through this program to help victims of domestic violence get access to needed services and to enhance the partnership between criminal justice agencies, victim services providers, and community organizations which respond to domestic violence.

Since passing VAWA, local communities around the United States have made significant strides toward eradicating domestic violence. Between 1993 and 2001, the rate of nonfatal domestic violence dropped 49 percent. States have passed over 660 laws pertaining to domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. Yet, despite our progress, a woman in the United States is still more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped, or killed by a male partner than by any other assailant. Three to four million American women continue to be battered by their husbands or partners every single year. At least a third of all female emergency room patients are battered women. A third of all homeless women and children in the U.S. are fleeing domestic violence. At least 5,000 women are beaten to death each year. This is unacceptable and we need to continue our efforts to eradicate domestic violence.

As we consider all issues of domestic abuse, we need to also be aware of the advent of for-profit international marriage brokers--companies that operate solely to connect men and women of different nations with the intent of getting married. Today, experts put the number of international marriage brokers at nearly 500 worldwide. Based on the 1999 statistics, there are between 20,000 and 30,000 women who have entered the U.S. using an international marriage broker in the past 5 years. While many of these matches result in long, happy unions, there is an unfortunate growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet through a broker. The risk of foreign women being abused and in some cases murdered by men they meet through these mail-order bride agencies is heightened greatly when they do not have access to vital information about their potential husbands or their rights in the United States. In my home State of Washington, we know of at least 3 cases of serious domestic violence, including 2 murders of women who met their husbands through Internet-based brokers.

On October 4, my colleagues unanimously passed legislation to reauthorize and improve the Violence Against Women Act once again. This legislation includes language I authored that will make information available to foreign women about the marital and violent criminal history of their prospective American husbands, in addition to

requiring international marriage brokers to provide foreign fiances with information about the rights and resources available to domestic violence victims in the United States. Under current practice, American clients can get all the information they want about foreign fiancees, while foreign clients only receive information that the Americans choose to share, and have no way to make sure what they are told is true. By providing foreign women who meet their potential American spouses with ability to access their potential spouse's marital and criminal history, we are taking a further step to curb domestic violence. The decisions we in Congress chose to make concerning the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 sets in place the priorities and funding levels that will directly affect how we respond to and prevent domestic violence in the coming years.

Because of its occurrence behind closed doors, many Americans are unaware of the severity of this problem. While domestic violence most directly affects women, it hurts us all, no matter our sex, race, religion, or economic status. As our Nation recognizes Domestic Violence Awareness Month, let each of us consider what we can further do to prevent its continuation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate and pay tribute to the life of a great Washingtonian, a great American, and someone that I know even in the Nation's Capital will be remembered for his great contributions. Yesterday, I learned of the death of Sam Volpentest, a resident of Washington State, who lived to be 101-year- old.

Sam has continued to play a leadership role in our State. We were all proud of the fact that we all attended his 100th birthday party last year and that for the last several months he has continued to play a vital role in the State of Washington on important economic issues.

I am proud to say that Sam was a friend, and I am grateful for his mentorship and his wisdom. My thoughts are with his family and the larger Tri-City community that mourn his loss. This is a man who had a list of unending accomplishments and literally touched thousands of lives of his fellow citizens. He changed the course of history in Washington State and left his mark on this Nation's history, as well.

Sam's legacy was one of generosity, of leadership, of commitment, of inspiration--important lessons for Washingtonians to still benefit from.

My remarks today cannot justify the significance of his contribution. Sam moved with his family from Seattle to the Tri-Cities in 1949 and went into business as a tavern owner. The Tri-Cities was just at the beginning the epicenter of the nuclear age, a sleepy little town in Richmond that sprung to life when the Hanford site was selected in 1943 as the location of the Manhattan Project, plutonium production activities as part of President Roosevelt's strategy to win World War II. The Manhattan Project transformed the entire region from literally an agriculture and fishing economy centered on the Columbia River into a Federal booming town. It changed the course of our State and Nation's history.

Central Washington was booming, and Sam thought it was the right place for a salesman like him and his family; so he went to work right away on community and business issues.

It was his vision for the community that continued to push the community and the representatives who came here to Washington and those in Washington, DC, to further see the future in Washington State.

Hanford had grown due to the Federal investment in the Manhattan Project and later in support of the Cold War. At that time, Sam, a former salesman and tavern owner, found himself rubbing shoulders with the likes of Senators Jackson and Magnuson, and stories about Sam, Scoop, and Maggie are numerous and legendary.

I think this picture shows that even at that time, with my predecessors, Senator Warren Magnuson and Senator Scoop Jackson, Sam Volpentest even back then was right in the thick of things. The fact that he still consulted with Senator Murray and me up until the last several months showed his dedication to what this country needed to be focused on.

In 1956, Sam decided that Richland, WA--one of the Tri-Cities surrounding Hanford--looked too much like a construction camp. That is because it was a community that literally sprang up overnight out in the desert. Sam wanted that community to continue to grow.

The N-Reactor was one of the most critical investments in the Tri- Cities, with Sam Volpentest's fingerprints on it. The Hanford site evolved as our Nation's nuclear needs changed. Sam's efforts helped America stay in the lead during the nuclear age, put Americans to work, improved the lives of those living in central Washington, and it played an incredible role for our country.

In the mid-1960s, as the nuclear age transitioned, Sam saw the writing on the wall: the Tri-Cities would need to evolve with it. As Hanford's nuclear weapons material production activities began to slow, Sam's vision drove him to change his strategy as well.

I come back to a critical point I want to say. In the 1940s, as World War II raged in Asia, Europe, and North Africa, my State responded to the Federal Government's call. As Federal investment grew during the early days of the Manhattan Project, this remote area of our State responded with the energy infrastructure that was so critical in helping launch the nuclear age. This world's first large-scale production nuclear reactor, the B Reactor, located in our State, played an incredibly vital role.

The reason I emphasize that is because Sam realized that once that goal was achieved, the region needed to keep playing an important role in our national security issues, and that was through the contributions of its workforce and materials needed throughout our time period post- World War II.

Our contribution and Sam's continuing contribution was to make sure the Federal investment and cleanup work at Hanford was actually achieved. Sam knew that the Tri-Cities had a lot to offer our Nation, but he knew that the economy needed to have diversity and that cleanup was part of it. So what did Sam do? He went about convincing Federal officials, private investment, and other resources to come to Hanford and explore more efficient ways to clean up the waste, and not just at our site in Washington State but around the world.

Sam's vision led to a larger vision that has leveraged the workforce in the State of Washington. Those efforts led to the establishment of one of our National Laboratories, the Pacific Northwest National Lab in the Tri-Cities. Today, Federal research dollars spur research and development in countless scientific areas--from proteomics research, nuclear materials cleanup, biofuels, and many more.

Sam did not just want to get the work done; he wanted the workforce and the community to be safe. Sam worked to further the economic development and success of his community through a variety of government and community organizations.

One of his most important projects was helping the business community get access to small business contracts that were being part of the Federal work commissioned at Hanford. Some of the most notable projects Sam Volpentest is responsible for in the Tri-Cities in Washington State are a six-story Federal building in Richland, the inception of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, three freeways, twin bridges over the Columbia River, the N-Reactor Hanford Generating Plant, the Fast Flux Test Facility, the Life Sciences Laboratory and the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, the Hanford House/Red Lion Hotel, the Iowa Beef Processing Plant, and Sam's namesake, the Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education Center.

This training center is probably one of Sam's greatest accomplishments because it still today provides Hanford workers with real-time training in safety and response. The training facility now has trained countless first responders from governments all over our country and all over the world on how to respond to safety incidents from a more robust public participation. Sam's efficiency at this training facility gives those who are first responders the on-the-job- training they need.

Sam was often asked when he was going to retire--for example, whether it would be at age 65 or 75. He said: Why would I want to do that? Don't retire. Look to the future. Ask what you can do for your community that has been so good to you. Get out there and do something. And even if you do it for free, it will make you feel great afterward.

That was Sam Volpentest, a great Washingtonian, a great member of our country. We will miss ``Mr. Tri-Cities,'' and we will try to live up to his legacy of accomplishment and continue to bring about a good cooperative relationship between a key part of Washington State, the great Tri-Cities, and our Federal Government, in making sure the Volpentest legacy continues.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise to share my concerns about the nomination of Judge John Roberts.

Let me say to my colleagues who have taken the floor through the last couple of days and have been eloquent I think on both sides of the aisle in their views, that I really do believe that we are at a very unique point in time at our history, that we are at the tip of the iceberg as it relates to the information age, and that this issue of personal privacy is only going to gain in importance over the lifetime of the next nominee to the Supreme Court.

And that is why this discussion and debate is so important, and that is why a diversity of voices I think should be heard on this issue.

Now, I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee but I did spend 2 years on the Judiciary Committee, and I made it clear in my time there that I had the intention to ask every nominee about their views on the rights to privacy and how they existed in the Constitution and what they thought was settled law as it relates to that and how they viewed some of the important decisions of the Courts in the past.

And I think that you have to give a context to the day and age in which we are making this decision on a Supreme Court nominee and the next nominee as it relates to these privacy rights.

We are at a time and age when individual citizens are concerned about their most personal information being obtained by businesses or health care organizations and somehow being released. They are concerned about government and government's overreaching in privacy matters and the use of technology that could be used without probable cause and warrant. We have even seen discussion by courts

and judges and a variety of people on the due process of enemy combatants--even a judge in our State raised concerns about how you balance protecting rights and security interests.

I know in Washington State these are among the key issues that the citizenry of Washington State cares about. They care about their personal privacy and they care about it being protected. They also care about that personal privacy as it relates to a variety of rights that they have come to expect.

In fact, in Washington State, a right of privacy is guaranteed in our Constitution. Article 1, section 7, which says--quote--``no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs or his home invaded without the authority of law.'' We adopted this constitutional right of privacy upon the founding of our State and the deep respect that we have for those individual rights.

It has been settled for decades by the courts of Washington State. Washington State law even goes further than the Federal Government in protecting people's privacy in a search and seizure context, for example. And I thinkit is very important to understand how much the State of Washington cares about these constitutional protections.

Now, as it relates specifically to a woman's right to choose, Washingtonians again have been very outspoken. In fact, in 1970, 3 years before the Federal courts spoke on this matter, the residents of my State passed a referendum legalizing abortion rights through the first trimester. That is in 1970. In 1991, the voters of my State passed by initiative a codification of Roe v. Wade into State statute.

I would hope that any nominee to the Supreme Court would understand how important the privacy rights are in not just Washington State but throughout the country and how challenged they are going to be in the next decades as the information age rolls out and more and more issues confront Americans about their privacy and the privacy of information about them.

During my tenure on the Judiciary Committee, I heard many conservative nominees express views in opposition to abortion rights and some were very critical of the decision in Roe v. Wade. I did not agree with these views, but where those nominees demonstrated an understanding that privacy in the choice context is an accepted right, and that the Nation and the courts have determined that right should be upheld, I voted to confirm these judges.

Sixty-one percent of Americans said that they wanted Judge Roberts to answer questions about how he would have ruled on past Supreme Court precedent. And I know that more than a majority of Americans believe that we should do our job in asking judicial nominees about their judicial philosophy.

But as my colleagues have pointed out, I have some concerns about Judge Roberts' views on the rights to privacy as it relates to how those will continue to protect a woman's right to choose. And I am concerned, as he talks about stare decisis exactly what he will uphold.

Now, I think a very important case that probably hasn't gotten a lot of attention on the floor but it is something that again Washingtonians care a lot about is Judge Roberts' dissent in the Rancho Viejo case. Judge Roberts went out of his way in this dissent to raise issues about whether Congress had overstepped its bound in enacting the Endangered Species Act. Courts have already decided this issue: Congress has the authority to protect our most precious species without concern that these efforts might be thrown out bit by bit. Judge Roberts has told us how important longstanding precedent is in his philosophy, yet he questions congress' longstanding authority to enact environmental protections.

In the Northwest, we absolutely rely on a very robust interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, both in its environmental context and with regard to other laws. We have a great, wonderful environment in the Northwest that we want to protect. And just as with the privacy context, Judge Roberts was asked during the hearing about his views on Congress's power to enact environmental protections and he declined to answer them specifically.

The Pacific Northwest is blessed with incredible beauty, complemented by the diverse wildlife that inhabits our lands and coastal waters. Unfortunately, habitat loss and other pressures threaten some of my State's most iconic species, whether that be the salmon that spawn our great rivers, birds that depend on old-growth forests, or even the orca whale that holds a special plan in the heart of everyone who lives near the Puget Sound. The Endangered Species Act is helping protect these animals from extinction. I have concerns about what Judge Roberts says about precedent yet in the case of the Endangered Species Act; his concern for following precedent wasn't there.

I share the concerns of my colleagues who have been to the floor that we want to know how Judge Roberts is going to make his philosophy about the right to privacy clearer for the individuals who have to vote for him. I am not clear what he considers the privacy rights in the Constitution that aren't enumerated. And I know that that may not be the same opinion of our Members on the floor of the Senate, but I think Washingtonians have come to expect that these privacy rights mean a great deal to them.

And so I cannot vote to confirm Judge Roberts until I know more about his philosophy. I am doing the job that I think the State of Washington wants me to do in fighting for these protections that have been constitutionally guaranteed, that have been voted on by initiative of the people in our State, and for the great protection of those privacy rights that they know need to be protected in the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act of 2005. I want to thank the original cosponsors of this legislation, which include Senate Minority Leader Reid, and Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Kerry, Feingold, Clinton, Kohl, Schumer, Stabenow, Dorgan, and Corzine.

This legislation would put in place a Federal law to prohibit gasoline price-gouging during national emergencies, and would institute new protections for American consumers from manipulation of oil and gasoline markets.

Even before the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and its tragic aftermath, skyrocketing oil and gasoline prices were burdening American families and our Nation's economy--with the notable exception of the oil industry, which continued to rack up record profits. Already in my home State of Washington, prices had reached 74 cents a gallon more than last year before the storm hit. After the storm--though our supplies were not directly affected--prices topped $3 per gallon in some areas of my State, including some of the most rural and economically challenged. And following that tragic storm, gas prices in some areas of this Nation reached almost $6 per gallon.

The volatility in oil and gasoline prices shows few signs of abating. Just yesterday, we saw oil set the new record for a one-day spike in prices. At the New York Mercantile Exchange, those prices rose more than $4 per barrel just yesterday, to close at $67.39. That's the largest single-day price spike since oil started trading on the exchange, in 1983.

It's clear to me that we have a lot of work to do, if we're going to get serious about addressing one of the most important challenges facing our generation of Americans: improving our Nation's energy security. We need a long-term plan and national commitment to free us from our over-dependence on oil in general. We need to make the American economy more fuel efficient, and position this Nation to compete in the 21st Century economy. It is in our Nation's long-term economic and national security interests to improve the fuel efficiency of American vehicles, provide consumers with the tools to make smart choices, provide those same consumers with a broader array of fuel- flexible vehicles and transportation options, and expand our production of home-grown biofuels, in more diverse regions of this country. Especially when it comes to fuel efficiency, this body has to date lacked the political will necessary to take the steps we must to bolster this Nation's energy and economic security. Along with my colleagues who have been tireless champions on this issue for so long, Senators Feinstein and Durbin, I will continue to fight to put our Nation on the right path when it comes to fuel efficiency.

But in the short-term, we also need to take a close look at the lack of transparency and increased concentration in the oil and gasoline markets, which has left us in a situation where the very few can set the prices that impact the lives of so many. And we need to make sure we have a national plan--triggered in cases of national emergencies-- that makes it clear profiteering at the gas pump will not be tolerated.

Right now, the oil companies know we don't have a plan to protect American consumers. That's why we need a Federal law that's going to prohibit price gouging, and assess Federal penalties from those who exploit national tragedies to maximize their profits. That is why my colleagues and I have come together today to introduce this legislation.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we have already heard gas station owners complaining that the big oil companies ordered them to raise prices. Investigating those claims should be the top job of federal regulators--and there should be harsh penalties for that kind of behavior, profiteering in the midst of a national disaster.

Today, 28 States have anti-gouging laws on the books. Unfortunately, my own State is not among them. But in crafting this legislation, I have looked to those other state laws--focusing specifically on the law of the State of New York, where price gouging cases have been successfully prosecuted in the past, related to natural disasters.

But I also want to remind my colleagues again that, while Hurricane Katrina exposed the underlying vulnerability of the American economy to supply disruptions, average U.S. gasoline prices were already 75 cents more than they were a year earlier--and many consumers had begun to ask why. While the oil companies have filled their coffers with record profits over the past few years, our Nation's airlines, truckers, farmers and small businesses across the board are struggling to make ends meet because of skyrocketing fuel costs. Worker pensions are in jeopardy, and families are already feeling the squeeze.

That's why this legislation also contains provisions to ban manipulation in oil and gasoline markets, and institutes new market transparency, investigation and enforcement mechanisms. These measures are based on provisions in the recently enacted bipartisan energy bill that prohibited these practices in other sectors of the energy industry. It provides for the same kind of anti-manipulation and transparency rules as those with which electricity and natural gas industries must comply. This legislation would apply the same sort of anti-manipulation and transparency standards to the oil industry that we already apply to companies that sell other essential energy commodities.

Already, these prices are impacting a diverse swath of the U.S. economy and hurting hard-working Americans. According to the Department of Energy, Americans will spend over $200 billion more on energy this year than they did

last year, totaling over one trillion dollars.

These energy prices are also costing us jobs. On average, every time oil prices go up 10 percent, 150,000 Americans lose their jobs--based on the calculations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Federal Reserve Board.

What's more, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, a 40 percent increase in gas prices this month will decrease total domestic consumption by 0.4 percent. And unless prices come down in the fourth quarter, our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will fall by 0.9 percent. These energy price spikes are strangling economic growth. According to the Congressional Research Service, every time oil prices go up by 10 percent for a sustained period of time, we lose somewhere between $80 billion and $160 billion in economic growth.

But while these prices are hurting the economy as a whole, they are having a particularly profound impact on our Nation's energy-intensive industries. For example, they are hampering the American airline industry. The airline industry estimates it will pay $9.2 billion more for fuel in 2005 than in 2004, a 103 percent increase from 2001. As Southwest CEO Steve Kelly told the Seattle Times just last week, ``We are now facing energy prices that no airline can make money at, at least with today's [ticket prices].''

These prices are also making it impossible for our farmers to break even. Even during a good year, farmers operate on profit margins of only about 5 percent, so fertilizer, fuel, and pesticide price increases of 20 percent or more have made it very difficult to get by.

Other sectors of the transportation industry are also being dramatically impacted. Take, for example, the trucking industry. Diesel fuel accounts for a quarter of the trucking industry's operating expense, or $85 billion in 2005. Each penny increase in diesel costs the trucking industry $350 million over a full year.

And these prices are impacting essential services in this country. School districts and local governments are feeling the pain, as are federal agencies themselves. Higher fuel prices are expected to add $300 million to the Postal Service's transportation costs nationwide this year.

What about the pain these prices are causing, in other ways? Energy costs are putting pensions at risk and requiring taxpayer bailouts. That's particularly true when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of airline workers in this country. United Airlines has already transferred $6.6 billion of its pension obligations to the government pension agency. If Delta and Northwest terminate their pension plans following their bankruptcy declarations, taxpayers would have to cover another $12 billion.

And these prices are especially harmful to low-income Americans. Households with incomes under $15,000--about one-fifth of all households in this country--this year will spend around 10 percent of their total income on gasoline alone.

And what's going to happen this winter? Heating costs for the average family using heating oil are projected to hit $1,666 during the upcoming winter months. This represents an increase of over $400 over last winter's prices and $700 more than the winter heating season of 2003 and 2004. For families using natural gas, prices are projected to hit $1,568, representing an increase of over $600 over last year's prices and $640 more than 2003 and 2004.

These alarming statistics lead me to question where is all this money going? The Congressional Budget Office wrote recently that increased gasoline prices are ``basically a temporary redistribution of income from consumers of gasoline to the stockholders of refiners.''

This is a situation that is causing gross inequities between different industries themselves. Oil industry profits have nearly tripled over the last three years to roughly $87 billion last year-- likely to be even more this year--while the airline industry has lost over $32 billion over the last four years.

How is this happening? While we watch all of these economic impacts transpire, our federal regulators have allowed the oil industry to strengthen its choke-hold on American consumers and businesses. According to the independent Government Accountability Office, mergers and increased market concentration with the U.S. petroleum industry has led to higher wholesale gasoline prices in this country.

That's why it's time for this body to do something about it. The Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act is a common-sense approach to protect American consumers from gasoline price gouging during national emergencies. And it begins to shine the spotlight on the marketing practices of the oil industry in general.

I thank my cosponsors for their support, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act of 2005. I want to thank the original cosponsors of this legislation, which include Senate Minority Leader Reid, and Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Kerry, Feingold, Clinton, Kohl, Schumer, Stabenow, Dorgan, and Corzine.

This legislation would put in place a Federal law to prohibit gasoline price-gouging during national emergencies, and would institute new protections for American consumers from manipulation of oil and gasoline markets.

Even before the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and its tragic aftermath, skyrocketing oil and gasoline prices were burdening American families and our Nation's economy--with the notable exception of the oil industry, which continued to rack up record profits. Already in my home State of Washington, prices had reached 74 cents a gallon more than last year before the storm hit. After the storm--though our supplies were not directly affected--prices topped $3 per gallon in some areas of my State, including some of the most rural and economically challenged. And following that tragic storm, gas prices in some areas of this Nation reached almost $6 per gallon.

The volatility in oil and gasoline prices shows few signs of abating. Just yesterday, we saw oil set the new record for a one-day spike in prices. At the New York Mercantile Exchange, those prices rose more than $4 per barrel just yesterday, to close at $67.39. That's the largest single-day price spike since oil started trading on the exchange, in 1983.

It's clear to me that we have a lot of work to do, if we're going to get serious about addressing one of the most important challenges facing our generation of Americans: improving our Nation's energy security. We need a long-term plan and national commitment to free us from our over-dependence on oil in general. We need to make the American economy more fuel efficient, and position this Nation to compete in the 21st Century economy. It is in our Nation's long-term economic and national security interests to improve the fuel efficiency of American vehicles, provide consumers with the tools to make smart choices, provide those same consumers with a broader array of fuel- flexible vehicles and transportation options, and expand our production of home-grown biofuels, in more diverse regions of this country. Especially when it comes to fuel efficiency, this body has to date lacked the political will necessary to take the steps we must to bolster this Nation's energy and economic security. Along with my colleagues who have been tireless champions on this issue for so long, Senators Feinstein and Durbin, I will continue to fight to put our Nation on the right path when it comes to fuel efficiency.

But in the short-term, we also need to take a close look at the lack of transparency and increased concentration in the oil and gasoline markets, which has left us in a situation where the very few can set the prices that impact the lives of so many. And we need to make sure we have a national plan--triggered in cases of national emergencies-- that makes it clear profiteering at the gas pump will not be tolerated.

Right now, the oil companies know we don't have a plan to protect American consumers. That's why we need a Federal law that's going to prohibit price gouging, and assess Federal penalties from those who exploit national tragedies to maximize their profits. That is why my colleagues and I have come together today to introduce this legislation.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we have already heard gas station owners complaining that the big oil companies ordered them to raise prices. Investigating those claims should be the top job of federal regulators--and there should be harsh penalties for that kind of behavior, profiteering in the midst of a national disaster.

Today, 28 States have anti-gouging laws on the books. Unfortunately, my own State is not among them. But in crafting this legislation, I have looked to those other state laws--focusing specifically on the law of the State of New York, where price gouging cases have been successfully prosecuted in the past, related to natural disasters.

But I also want to remind my colleagues again that, while Hurricane Katrina exposed the underlying vulnerability of the American economy to supply disruptions, average U.S. gasoline prices were already 75 cents more than they were a year earlier--and many consumers had begun to ask why. While the oil companies have filled their coffers with record profits over the past few years, our Nation's airlines, truckers, farmers and small businesses across the board are struggling to make ends meet because of skyrocketing fuel costs. Worker pensions are in jeopardy, and families are already feeling the squeeze.

That's why this legislation also contains provisions to ban manipulation in oil and gasoline markets, and institutes new market transparency, investigation and enforcement mechanisms. These measures are based on provisions in the recently enacted bipartisan energy bill that prohibited these practices in other sectors of the energy industry. It provides for the same kind of anti-manipulation and transparency rules as those with which electricity and natural gas industries must comply. This legislation would apply the same sort of anti-manipulation and transparency standards to the oil industry that we already apply to companies that sell other essential energy commodities.

Already, these prices are impacting a diverse swath of the U.S. economy and hurting hard-working Americans. According to the Department of Energy, Americans will spend over $200 billion more on energy this year than they did

last year, totaling over one trillion dollars.

These energy prices are also costing us jobs. On average, every time oil prices go up 10 percent, 150,000 Americans lose their jobs--based on the calculations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Federal Reserve Board.

What's more, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, a 40 percent increase in gas prices this month will decrease total domestic consumption by 0.4 percent. And unless prices come down in the fourth quarter, our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will fall by 0.9 percent. These energy price spikes are strangling economic growth. According to the Congressional Research Service, every time oil prices go up by 10 percent for a sustained period of time, we lose somewhere between $80 billion and $160 billion in economic growth.

But while these prices are hurting the economy as a whole, they are having a particularly profound impact on our Nation's energy-intensive industries. For example, they are hampering the American airline industry. The airline industry estimates it will pay $9.2 billion more for fuel in 2005 than in 2004, a 103 percent increase from 2001. As Southwest CEO Steve Kelly told the Seattle Times just last week, ``We are now facing energy prices that no airline can make money at, at least with today's [ticket prices].''

These prices are also making it impossible for our farmers to break even. Even during a good year, farmers operate on profit margins of only about 5 percent, so fertilizer, fuel, and pesticide price increases of 20 percent or more have made it very difficult to get by.

Other sectors of the transportation industry are also being dramatically impacted. Take, for example, the trucking industry. Diesel fuel accounts for a quarter of the trucking industry's operating expense, or $85 billion in 2005. Each penny increase in diesel costs the trucking industry $350 million over a full year.

And these prices are impacting essential services in this country. School districts and local governments are feeling the pain, as are federal agencies themselves. Higher fuel prices are expected to add $300 million to the Postal Service's transportation costs nationwide this year.

What about the pain these prices are causing, in other ways? Energy costs are putting pensions at risk and requiring taxpayer bailouts. That's particularly true when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of airline workers in this country. United Airlines has already transferred $6.6 billion of its pension obligations to the government pension agency. If Delta and Northwest terminate their pension plans following their bankruptcy declarations, taxpayers would have to cover another $12 billion.

And these prices are especially harmful to low-income Americans. Households with incomes under $15,000--about one-fifth of all households in this country--this year will spend around 10 percent of their total income on gasoline alone.

And what's going to happen this winter? Heating costs for the average family using heating oil are projected to hit $1,666 during the upcoming winter months. This represents an increase of over $400 over last winter's prices and $700 more than the winter heating season of 2003 and 2004. For families using natural gas, prices are projected to hit $1,568, representing an increase of over $600 over last year's prices and $640 more than 2003 and 2004.

These alarming statistics lead me to question where is all this money going? The Congressional Budget Office wrote recently that increased gasoline prices are ``basically a temporary redistribution of income from consumers of gasoline to the stockholders of refiners.''

This is a situation that is causing gross inequities between different industries themselves. Oil industry profits have nearly tripled over the last three years to roughly $87 billion last year-- likely to be even more this year--while the airline industry has lost over $32 billion over the last four years.

How is this happening? While we watch all of these economic impacts transpire, our federal regulators have allowed the oil industry to strengthen its choke-hold on American consumers and businesses. According to the independent Government Accountability Office, mergers and increased market concentration with the U.S. petroleum industry has led to higher wholesale gasoline prices in this country.

That's why it's time for this body to do something about it. The Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act is a common-sense approach to protect American consumers from gasoline price gouging during national emergencies. And it begins to shine the spotlight on the marketing practices of the oil industry in general.

I thank my cosponsors for their support, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this important legislation. We are here to talk about passing an Energy bill that is not a complete answer to all our energy needs. This is not the end of discussion about energy independence and getting off our overdependence on foreign oil, but it is an important first step. My colleagues need to understand that the provisions in this bill are nuts-and-bolts important for our energy economy, moving forward. As a Senator who supports this legislation, there are certain technologies, certain investments in this legislation that I hope will win the day and will help us build a different kind of energy economy, based on newer technologies and energy supplies than the ones we have today. But this bill represents a compromise that was forged in the Senate and was fought hard for by my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, when they went to conference.

I am proud that it has an extension of renewable production tax credits so that our utilities can continue to invest in even more renewable energy; that for the first time it has a renewable clean energy bond section, so that local governments and public power can make greater investments in renewable energy; that it has an extension of the renewable energy production incentive program for public power; that there are efficiency provisions in the bill for appliances and other types of standards that will save 3.5 quads of energy.

That is the same as building 85 powerplants. It has a hybrid vehicle incentive provision. It has a biodiesel incentive program. It reinstates the oil spill liability trust fund, which was going broke and which helps us clean up oil pollution, and taxes those who are the polluters. It has research on the smart grid technology that is going to get us more efficiency in our transmission system, and it has incremental steps to push the States toward better standards on net metering. For the Northwest, the electricity title in this legislation is clearly a victory, and I would say the efficiency title in this bill is also a victory.

We are moving closer to the key tools we need to upgrade our transmission system. We will have many more debates about what this body can do, though, to continue to diversify off of foreign oil. But we should take the step today to secure that transmission system and get reliability standards in place, something this body has debated now for more than 5 years. After a Western blackout, after a New York blackout, after people in Ohio and Michigan have been affected, the least we can do is push this legislation to improve the security and reliability of our electricity grid.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation as a first step, a short stroke of success, and get about going back to the broader decisions we need to make truly start moving in the direction toward energy independence.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the conference report on H.R. 6, the Comprehensive Energy Policy Act of 2005. I stand before my colleagues today with very mixed feelings about this legislation. This conference report has many meaningful achievements and measures that can help provide this Nation, our researchers, and innovators, with the basic tools to start moving America forward toward a new energy strategy for the 21st century. Yet it is far from perfect. It sidesteps many of the most fundamental energy security challenges we face--challenges like our dependence on foreign oil and global climate change, which grow more intractable the longer we wait to address them. It contains provisions that I simply do not support. It is certainly not the Energy bill that this Senator would write if I alone held the drafting pen--the kind of legislation that would put this Nation on a far more ambitious path toward greater energy security in the global economy. I know many of my colleagues feel exactly the same way.

And yet I believe all Senators must clearly acknowledge that this legislation is in many ways superior to the Energy bill conference report we considered during the 108th Congress. And that is true in some very meaningful ways for my region, the Pacific Northwest.

When the Senate, last month, approved its version of this legislation, I noted that I appreciated the skill and thoughtfulness with which the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, had navigated a path forward for this bill. I suggested at the time that they would need every bit of that skill in coming to resolution with the House of Representatives, on a piece of legislation worthy of this Senate's support. Frankly, I doubted very much that it could be done.

But I stand here today ready to vote for this conference report--with reservations, of course--but in recognition of the fact that this legislation is probably better than many of us had reason to expect; and as good as the current political will of Congress would allow. For that, I give enormous credit to the chairman and ranking member. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I want to say that I have appreciated the bipartisan nature in which they have handled this bill from the outset. At every turn, they have treated this Senator--and her constituents' interests--with complete fairness. The process by which this legislation was assembled should serve as a model for this body.

I want to talk briefly about what I view as some of the most important achievements of this legislation--particularly for my region and the great State of Washington. These are some of the basic tools that can help serve as building blocks to a more ambitious energy strategy for America.

First and foremost, it is important to understand that the Pacific Northwest is a region completely unique when it comes to our energy system. More than 70 percent of the electricity production in Washington State is derived from hydroelectric sources--designed around our great river, the mighty Columbia. This was a system built as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to electrify the West. As a result, we are a region with a rich and diverse energy history, an uncommon collection of public and private institutions, a large Federal presence that starts with the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, and a diverse array of stakeholders rightly concerned about the river's multiple uses. I know all of my colleagues from the Northwest who sit on the Energy Committee--there are five of us, in fact--appreciate this tremendous heritage, our region's history of cost-based power, and the valuable asset that we inherited from our predecessors, great leaders like Senators Jackson, Hatfield, and Magnuson.

That is why we worked hard, in a bipartisan manner at every turn, to safeguard the Northwest's system of cost-based power--the engine of our regional economy. That is why the electricity title of this legislation is so important to my region, and to the ratepayers of Washington State.

I am proud this legislation specifically protects the Northwest's transmission system, by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, from converting the Bonneville Power Administration's existing system of cost-based, firm transmission contracts to a market- based auction of financial transmission rights.

Now, this auction of financial transmission rights was a central tenet of FERC's controversial and ill-fated standard market design, SMD, proposal. All of us from the Northwest were united in our opposition to SMD because we recognized right away that it was a scheme with the potential to result in tremendous amounts of cost-

shifting onto our ratepayers, and to substantially undermine our cost- based system. The provision that protects the Northwest's existing system is thus an important achievement because it slams the door on any sort of future FERC-imposed proposal like standard market design. I would also note that the Senate-passed Energy bill would have slammed the door on SMD once and for all. This became unnecessary, however, when FERC's new chairman officially terminated the commission's SMD proceeding earlier this month. I think that was a very wise choice and think it speaks quite well of the commission's new leadership.

Also important to my region are provisions that this bill does not contain. Specifically, this conference report omits the administration's legislative proposals--unveiled earlier this year--to hamstring BPA's ability to invest in regional infrastructure and upend Bonneville's system of cost-based power sales. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council has estimated the administration's proposal would raise regional power rates by $1.7 billion. That would translate to a $480-a-year rate hike for families in some of Washington's most rural communities. Again thanks to the bipartisan efforts of Northwest Senators, those legislative proposals were dead on arrival.

When it comes to protecting Washington State consumers, I must also mention a number of other provisions. At long last, the bill establishes mandatory, enforceable reliability rules for operation of the Nation's transmission grid. This effort also began in the Pacific Northwest--after an August 1996 blackout resulting from two overloaded transmission lines near Portland, OR which caused a sweeping outage that knocked out power for up to 16 hours in 10 States, including Washington. As a result, both a DOE task force and the industry itself in 1997 recommended mandatory reliability rules for operating the transmission grid. The Senate first passed this legislation just over 5 years ago, in an effort begun by my predecessor, Senator Slade Gorton. It is legislation that I have championed since I have arrived in the Senate, an effort that gained more urgency with the Northeast blackouts of two summers ago; and I will be very pleased to see this measure through to the end.

This bill also takes steps to respond to the disastrous western energy crisis, which extracted billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs from our regional economy. As I have recounted many times on this floor, the illegal and unethical practices of Enron and others sent Washington power rates through the roof. This Energy bill puts in place the first ever broad prohibition on manipulation of electricity and natural gas markets. These provisions are modeled on a measure that I have authored that has now passed the Senate twice, and I am pleased that they are included in this conference report-- particularly given the far inferior provisions contained in the House legislation, which would have in many ways gone in the entirely opposite direction.

In light of the now-infamous audiotapes of Enron traders and others conspiring to gouge consumers, the legislation also gives Federal regulators new authority to ban unscrupulous energy traders and executives from employment in the utility industry. In addition, it substantially increases fines for energy companies that break the rules. And importantly for my constituents, this legislation prohibits a Federal bankruptcy court from enforcing fraudulent Enron power contracts, including $122 million the now-bankrupt energy giant is attempting to collect from Snohomish PUD. That would translate to more than $400 from the pockets of every family in Snohomish County, WA, who have already seen their utility bills rise precipitously as a result of the western energy debacle.

For all these provisions, I am tremendously grateful to the chairman and ranking member. I know they faced a steep uphill battle with the House in retaining these measures, and I applaud and thank them for their efforts in ensuring that the Senate positions prevailed.

I should also mention the renewable fuels provisions of this bill, which I believe will help put Washington State farmers and entrepreneurs in the biofuels business. Today, production of biofuels is dominated by the midwestern region of the country, as traditional policies have supported corn- and soy-based fuel production and helped that technology gain maturity. However, the key to lowering costs and establishing a truly national strategy is to make an investment in new technologies that will diversify biofuels production in the United States.

Researchers at Washington State University estimate that our State has the capacity to produce 200 million gallons of ethanol from wheat straw, and up to 1.2 billion gallons with technology improvements. Meanwhile, biodiesel is another emerging opportunity for Washington State farmers, using canola or yellow mustard. These crops are particularly well-suited to Washington State, providing high yields without irrigation.

Around Spokane, it is estimated that 500,000 acres a year could be put into oil seed production, enough oil to produce 25 million gallons of biodiesel. Statewide, at least 2 million acres could be put into oilseed production for biodiesel.

There are a number of very important provisions in this bill that will help my State capitalize on the promise of biofuels, including an Advanced Biofuel Technology Program I authored, to help demonstrate these new technologies; important market-based incentives for refiners to diversify the types of biofuels they use; and financial support in many forms for cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production.

These are very important achievements that will help transform biofuels from a boutique regional industry to something that can become part of a truly national strategy to help supplant our Nation's petroleum imports--lowering costs and helping provide greater economic security to our farmers at the same time.

But in addition to renewable fuels, we should acknowledge the provisions of this legislation promoting renewable electricity generation. Obviously, this legislation does not go as far as I would like. I vigorously support a renewable portfolio standard--even a more aggressive standard than what passed the Senate. It is unfortunate, indeed, that the House would not accept this provision, and those of us who strongly advocate it will continue to attempt to move the RPS forward.

But this legislation does extend through the end of 2007 the existing production tax credit for renewable energy, such as wind resources. It is estimated that this credit can help save Washington State ratepayers $260 million over the next 10 years. As Northwest utilities add wind resources to help bolster regional power supplies, these investments are also helping fill the coffers of local communities. For example, a new wind project near Ellensburg, WA, has generated an additional $2 million in revenue for Kittitas County. Similarly, wind energy is helping provide another source of income for Northwest farmers. Growers in Columbia County, WA, home to the new 150 Megawatt Hopkins Ridge wind project, receive about $5,000 per turbine located on their land. One farmer estimates the revenue generated by the project will equal the income generated by 250 acres of harvest.

For the first time, the Energy bill creates clean renewable energy bonds, to support investment in renewable energy resources by governmental entities, including tribes, agencies such as BPA and other public power entities. I am also pleased that for 20 years the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, REPI, Program, which provides a direct payment to public power entities, which do not qualify for tax credits, for renewable electricity production. Eligible resources are expanded to include ocean energy. The REPI Program has already been used by multiple Washington State public utilities to make renewable energy investments.

Washington State is also home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab, and for that reason, the research and development title of this legislation bears mentioning. The Energy bill conference report authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in research ongoing at the Pacific Northwest National Lab and Washington State universities, including systems biology research, distributed and smart energy technology research and development; bio- and nanotechnology related to the production of bioproducts; and advanced scientific computing.

The Energy bill's ``personnel and training'' title is also worth noting, since it will help provide a skilled energy workforce for the 21st century, as the energy industry braces for a critical shortage. Washington State is poised to help train the next generation of engineers and innovators in this area. The legislation requires the Secretaries of Energy and Labor to monitor workforce trends in the area of electric power and transmission engineers and identify critical national shortages of personnel. It also authorizes the Secretaries to establish a grants program of up to $20 million a year to enhance training--including distance-learning, such as the program now being pioneered at Gonzaga University--in electric power and transmission engineering fields. While fewer than 15 universities nationwide offer world-class, Ph.D.-level programs in power engineering, both Washington State University and the University of Washington offer strong programs in this area. In addition, Gonzaga University this year established a specialized masters of science degree and certification program in transmission and distribution engineering.

This conference report also streamlines technology transfer rules for national labs such as PNNL, and extends the 20 percent R&D tax credit to energy research done by nonprofit consortiums involving small businesses, National Labs, and universities to promote interaction and collaboration between public and private researchers. The research and development and workforce provisions of this bill hold some of the most promise in putting in place the building blocks for a real, innovative energy strategy for the 21st century.

Years in the making, the Energy bill also includes bipartisan reform of the hydroelectric relicensing process. The hydro provisions included in this legislation are designed to improve the accountability and quality of Federal agencies' decisions. At the same time, the compromise restores the rights of the public to participate in the process on equal footing with license applicants--provisions that have been missing in previous versions of the bill. Over the next 15 years, 70 percent of Washington State's non-Federal hydro must go through the hydro relicensing process.

Another provision of importance to my State is this legislation's reinstatement of the oil spill liability trust fund, OSLTF. Earlier this year, a Coast Guard report found that the OSLTF--which has been used to clean up spills in the Puget Sound--would run out of money by 2009. The OSLTF was established in the 1990 Oil Pollution Control Act, and has been funded through a per-barrel fee on oil companies until it reached its statutory cap of $1 billion. The fund was designed to be maintained from interest on that original $1 billion, but increasing cleanup costs and low liability caps have eroded the principal amount. The Energy bill would reinstate the fee in April 2006 or thereafter, once the Secretary finds that the balance in the account falls below $2 billion. The bill authorizes application of the fee through 2014.

Lastly, I want to mention this legislation's provisions to provide energy assistance to some of our Nation's neediest families. The Energy bill would boost authorization for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, from its traditional level of $2 billion to $5.1 billion, for 2005-2007. LIHEAP funding is critical for some of Washington State's most vulnerable citizens. As a result of the western energy crisis, electricity rates have gone up more than 20 percent statewide while 72 percent of low-income families in Washington use electricity to heat their homes. And already, the 105,000 Washingtonians with incomes below 50 percent of the Federal poverty level spend 34 percent of their entire annual pay on home energy bills. In recent years, less than 30 percent of Washington's eligible families have been able to receive energy assistance--as demand has for LIHEAP dollars has far outpaced their availability. More than doubling available LIHEAP funding would provide a much-needed boost to local organizations in Washington struggling to meet the needs of their communities.

As my colleagues can see, this legislation is tremendously complex. I have listed many of the provisions important to my constituents. Of course, there are a number of other measures with which I simply disagree. Perhaps that is to be expected of a 1,700-page piece of legislation that touches every sector of the American economy. For example, the inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources is wrong-headed, and I oppose it. I would note, however, that in order for the inventory to move forward, it must be funded. I know this Senator believes any such inventory would constitute a tremendous waste of taxpayer funds, and the fight is far from over on this issue.

Similarly, I oppose the liquefied natural gas provisions of this bill because I believe States and local communities need a bigger role in these decisions. Some of the nuclear provisions of this bill are particularly offensive, in that they create an inherent conflict of interest at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which should not be subject to the cross pressures of protecting public safety and the public interest, at the same time the commission is under fiscal pressure to unwisely accelerate its proceedings under the guise of some new form of ``risk insurance.''

I oppose the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act rollbacks in this bill. The National Energy Policy Act provisions are similarly unnecessary. But I recognize that they are far less sweeping than those originally proposed by the House. If this Senator had her way, we would not be repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act. Yet I am at least comforted by the fact this legislation hews closely to the compromise on utility mergers reached by the Senate.

Moreover, the tax package does not resemble the tax package I would have written. On this point, I agree with the President: The oil and gas industry does not need these incentives, given where prices are at today.

I am not the first Senator to say it, and I won't be the last. This bill is not as I would have written it. It has the flaws that I have listed. It is also incomplete. It is a status quo bill when it comes to one of the most difficult challenges to our economic and national security faced by this generation: America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil. This bill does not address this festering problem. It will not provide relief to consumers at the gas pump. Any suggestion to the contrary would be simply false.

It is clear to this Senator that if this body is truly serious about putting in place a framework that will allow the United States to compete in the global marketplace; a framework that will allow America to control its own destiny in the coming decades as it relates to our energy security, our work is not done. Tomorrow isn't soon enough to go back to the drawing board and get serious about our dependence on foreign oil. And this Senator will keep fighting to do just that. Our work on energy security has hardly begun--it is far from finished if we want to live up to our responsibilities to future generations of Americans. We must not leave to them a Nation crippled by its addiction to foreign sources of oil--an over-dependence that jeopardizes our economic future and national security.

On the contrary, it is our responsibility to face up to a simple fact: The accidents of geology make it impossible for this Nation to drill its way to energy independence, since we are situated on just 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. We must recognize that fact and read the economic indicators. We must consider emerging competitors such as China and India, and recognize the seismic shifts that are likely to occur in the dynamics of world energy markets.

I firmly believe that future generations of Americans will measure us on how we choose to address the challenges of energy security and climate change. They are that vital to this Nation's security and our economic future.

But this Senator also recognizes that the leadership of this Congress is not yet prepared to take that step; that my colleagues and I who believe so fundamentally in the importance of enhancing our oil security have more work to do to change the hearts and minds of our colleagues. The American people must also demand better leadership from their elected officials when it comes to energy security. And this Senator stands ready to work across

the aisle to do what is necessary to make meaningful progress on these issues.

This bill is not perfect. We have much more work to do to bolster our energy security, and this Senator is ready to roll up her sleeves and do it. But on the whole, this bill provides some basic building blocks toward a better energy future. For that reason, I will support the Energy bill conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, today I rise to cast another vote in favor of strict control on armor-piercing, cop-killer bullets. I am proud to stand to strengthen the penalties against those who use this ammunition. I also would like to set the record straight on my position on the same amendment last year. Last year, like this year, several Senators offered versions of this measure. I support both strengthening the penalties and the other provisions of the Craig/Frist amendment, as well as the broader definition of banned cop-killer ammunition in the Kennedy amendment, which I believe provides even stronger protection for America's law enforcement officers. That is why I am voting for both of these amendments and why I wish I had been recorded supporting both of these amendments last year.

In preparation for today's vote, it was discovered that my position was inaccurately recorded last year. While Senate rules do not allow for a formal correction of an error from a previous Congress, I today submit for the record that I supported the Frist/Craig amendment last year, just as I do today.

And I particularly thank both the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Massachusetts for their work on this important issue.

Mr. President, I am proud to rise today with my colleagues Senators Collins, Bingaman, Murray, Mikulski, Kohl and Corzine, to introduce bipartisan legislation enhancing the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. As all of my colleagues

know, the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) was created through the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 171). It is a program that provides grants to States, territories, and Native American tribal governments to provide coupons to low-income seniors to purchase fresh, locally grown fruits, vegetables, and herbs from farmers' markets, roadside stands, and community supported agricultural programs. The purpose of the program is to make healthy foods available to low-income seniors while simultaneously assisting domestic farmers.

Scientific research increasingly confirms that what we eat may have a significant impact on our health, quality of life, and longevity. In the United States, high intakes of fat and saturated fat, and low intakes of calcium and fiber-containing foods such as whole grains, vegetables and fruits are associated with several chronic health conditions that can impair the quality of life and hasten mortality.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, research continues to find strong links between eating lots of fruits and vegetables and preventing chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Eating more fruits and vegetables may also play a role in preventing other diseases such as high blood pressure and osteoporosis, to name just two.

Two studies, one here in the U.S. and the other in the Netherlands, found eating a diet rich in vitamins E and C may help to lower your risk of Alzheimer's disease. Both found that eating foods high in vitamin E may reduce your risk of Alzheimer's, a degenerative brain disease. The U.S. study found that people with the highest vitamin E intake in their diet had a 70 percent lower frequency of Alzheimer's than those with the lowest amounts of vitamin E in their diet.

Vitamin A, which is found in many different fruits and vegetables, is very important to the health of your eyes. Other nutrients in produce, such as carotenoids, also play a role in maintaining healthy eyes and good vision. An example of a carotenoid is lutein. Lutein is found in dark green leafy vegetables like spinach.

While the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables may seem obvious, only 27 percent of women and 19 percent of men eat the recommended 5 servings of fruits and vegetables every day.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service administers the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program; and in fiscal year 2003, approximately 800,000 people received SFMNP coupons throughout the country. The food made available for sale came from an estimated 14,000 farmers at more than 2,000 farmers' markets as well as nearly 1,800 roadside stands and 200 community supported agricultural programs. In fiscal year 2005, 46 States, U.S. Territories, and federally recognized Indian tribal governments will operate the SFMNP. Close to 900,000 eligible seniors are expected to receive benefits that can be used at over 4,000 markets, roadside stands and community supported agricultural programs during the 2005 harvest season.

In Washington State, the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program has been incredibly successful in ensuring access to healthy foods for seniors, as well as bolstering the state's farmers and our farmers' markets. In fact, according to the Washington State University Nutrition Education program, in Washington State, the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program reaches about 8,000 lower-income older adults each year in 35 of my State's 39 counties. In 2003, 472 farms, 49 farmers markets, four roadside stands and one community supported agriculture program participated in the SFMNP and the participating seniors in Washington state purchased approximately 90 tons of fresh produce while learning about the role of nutrition in their health in preventing chronic disease.

The bill that I am introducing today aims to better address the growing demand and need for the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program in four ways.

First, the bill would increase funding from $15 million to $25 million for the program in fiscal year 2005 and continue to expand the program by $25 million each year, until the program's expiration in 2007, meaning that the SFMNP would be funded at not less than $50 million in fiscal year 2006, and at not less than $75 million in 2007.

Second, the bill specifies that funds made available through this act will remain available to the program until exhausted. As such, any remaining funds from one fiscal year will roll over into the subsequent fiscal year budget for the SFMNP.

Third, provisions in the bill support administrative costs. Not more than ten percent of available funds in a fiscal year can be used to cover the operating expenses of the SFMNP.

Finally, the bill grants authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to expand the list of foods eligible for purchase to include minimally processed foods, such as honey, as deemed appropriate.

We should not forget, too, that an obvious, positive outgrowth of the program is the inherent ability of the SFMNP program to strengthen local economies and communities while at the same time works to preserve farmland and open spaces. I sincerely appreciate that the Washington Association of Area Agencies on Aging, as well as the Washington State Farmers Market Association, are supporting this legislation.

The legislation I am introducing today will go a long way in expanding the amount of funding available for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. We all know that value and importance that individuals of all ages eat their requisite servings of vegetables and fruit each day. Such foods are high in fiber and lower the risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, in addition to colon and rectal cancer, high blood pressure, and obesity. However, food costs can be a significant barrier to developing and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. In establishing the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program in 2002, Congress recognized that it is important to provide a means for low-income seniors to have access to fruits and vegetables. The legislation I introduce today will further our nation's commitment to ensuring the health of our nation's seniors, and I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to rise today with my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Rockefeller, Lincoln, Murray and Corzine to introduce the ``Affordable Access to Medicare Providers Act.''

Securing access to affordable healthcare, especially for our Nation's seniors, is critical and it remains to be one of my top priorities. Access to healthcare is impacted by two key factors: we must have enough well qualified healthcare providers that are willing and able to accept Medicare patients, and the beneficiaries must be able to afford the premiums required to utilize their Medicare benefits. This bill addresses both of these issues--it will provide some stability in physician Medicare payment rates so that physicians can continue to offer high quality healthcare services while ensuring that the Medicare beneficiaries are not saddled with the cost and even higher premiums for physicians services.

Medicare was written to cover the most basic health care for seniors. When the original bill passed in 1965, the legislation's conference report explicitly stated that the intent of the program is to provide adequate ``medical aid . . . for needy people, and should ``make the best of modem medicine more readily available to the aged.''

While the Medicare Modernization Act provided some improvements such as: It also had some unfortunate consequences on the Medicare beneficiaries in Washington State. Medicare payments per beneficiary will be further exacerbated and continue to penalize Washington state for our efficient healthcare system. Fifty-seven percent of Washington state physicians are limiting or dropping Medicare patients from their practices. Washington falling to 45th in the Nation on reimbursements will not help the situation.

A survey conducted by the Medicare Payment Advisory Council, MedPAC, found that 22 percent of patients already have some problems finding a primary care physician and 27 percent report delays getting an appointment. Physicians are the foundation of our Nation's health care system. Continual cuts, or even the threat of repeated cuts, put Medicare patient access to physicians' services at risk. They also threaten to destabilize the Medicare program and create a ripple effect across other programs. Indeed, Medicare cuts jeopardize access to medical care for millions of our active duty military family members and military retirees because their TRICARE insurance ties its payment rates to Medicare.

Now we are told by the Medicare board of Trustees that if Congress does not act by the end of the year, the Medicare physician payment formula will likely produce a 4.3 percent decrease next year with similar reductions to follow in the years to come. The Medicare Board of Trustees also estimates that the cost of providing medical care will increase by an estimated 15 percent over the next six years, while current reimbursement levels are scheduled to drop by an estimated 26 percent over the same time period.

After adjusting for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians in 2013 will be less than half of what they were in 1991. That declining reimbursement rate would likely mean a growing percentage of family physicians would decline to see new Medicare patients and, as a result, access to care would suffer.

Washington stands to lose $39 million in 2006 and 1.9 billion from 2006-2014 if these cuts go through. For physicians in Washington, the cuts over this period will average $13,000 per year for each physician in the State.

The American Medical Association conducted a survey of physicians in February and March 2005 concerning significant Medicare pay cuts from 2006 through 2013 (as forecast in the 2004 Medicare Trustees report). Results from the survey indicate that if the projected cuts in Medicare physician payment rates begin in 2006: more than a third of physicians (38 percent) plan to decrease the number of new Medicare patients they accept; more than half of physicians (54 percent) plan to defer the purchase of information technology, which is necessary to make value- based purchasing work; a majority of physicians (53 percent) will be less likely to participate in a Medicare Advantage plan; about a quarter of physicians plan to close satellite offices (24 percent) and/ or discontinue rural outreach services (29 percent) if payments are cut in 2006. If the pay cuts continue through 2013, close to half of physicians plan to close satellite offices (42 percent) and/or discontinue rural outreach (44 percent); and one-third of physicians (34 percent) plan to discontinue nursing home visits if payments are cut in 2006. By the time the cuts end, half (50 percent) of physicians will have discontinued nursing home visits.

Physicians can simply not absorb cuts these cuts and still deliver high quality care. We must ensure our doctors have the resources they need to ensure that our seniors have access to their physicians.

There have been efforts made to address the physician payment issue however; they have not addressed the impact on Medicare beneficiaries and their premiums. I'm concerned some of the proposals would result in an additional burden being placed on the Medicare beneficiary by way of a $24 billion increase in part B premiums in 2006 and a $60 billion increase in 2007.

This happens because by law, the monthly Part B premium is set at 25 percent of the part B Trust Fund costs. Administrative or legal changes to increase physician payment rates that don't include a hold-harmless clause, increase Medicare part B expenditures and ultimately, the Part B premiums paid by beneficiaries.

This is not a viable solution either as the beneficiaries are already being hit with premium increases and additional cost sharing due to implementation of the prescription drug benefit. For this reason, along with my colleagues, I have chosen to introduce legislation that provides the update for physician reimbursement rates but also holds the part B premiums harmless.

I look forward to working my colleagues to pass this legislation to ensure that access to care for our seniors is preserved and enhanced.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to rise today with my colleagues Senators Collins, Bingaman, Murray, Mikulski, Kohl and Corzine, to introduce bipartisan legislation enhancing the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. As all of my colleagues

know, the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) was created through the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 171). It is a program that provides grants to States, territories, and Native American tribal governments to provide coupons to low-income seniors to purchase fresh, locally grown fruits, vegetables, and herbs from farmers' markets, roadside stands, and community supported agricultural programs. The purpose of the program is to make healthy foods available to low-income seniors while simultaneously assisting domestic farmers.

Scientific research increasingly confirms that what we eat may have a significant impact on our health, quality of life, and longevity. In the United States, high intakes of fat and saturated fat, and low intakes of calcium and fiber-containing foods such as whole grains, vegetables and fruits are associated with several chronic health conditions that can impair the quality of life and hasten mortality.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, research continues to find strong links between eating lots of fruits and vegetables and preventing chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Eating more fruits and vegetables may also play a role in preventing other diseases such as high blood pressure and osteoporosis, to name just two.

Two studies, one here in the U.S. and the other in the Netherlands, found eating a diet rich in vitamins E and C may help to lower your risk of Alzheimer's disease. Both found that eating foods high in vitamin E may reduce your risk of Alzheimer's, a degenerative brain disease. The U.S. study found that people with the highest vitamin E intake in their diet had a 70 percent lower frequency of Alzheimer's than those with the lowest amounts of vitamin E in their diet.

Vitamin A, which is found in many different fruits and vegetables, is very important to the health of your eyes. Other nutrients in produce, such as carotenoids, also play a role in maintaining healthy eyes and good vision. An example of a carotenoid is lutein. Lutein is found in dark green leafy vegetables like spinach.

While the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables may seem obvious, only 27 percent of women and 19 percent of men eat the recommended 5 servings of fruits and vegetables every day.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service administers the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program; and in fiscal year 2003, approximately 800,000 people received SFMNP coupons throughout the country. The food made available for sale came from an estimated 14,000 farmers at more than 2,000 farmers' markets as well as nearly 1,800 roadside stands and 200 community supported agricultural programs. In fiscal year 2005, 46 States, U.S. Territories, and federally recognized Indian tribal governments will operate the SFMNP. Close to 900,000 eligible seniors are expected to receive benefits that can be used at over 4,000 markets, roadside stands and community supported agricultural programs during the 2005 harvest season.

In Washington State, the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program has been incredibly successful in ensuring access to healthy foods for seniors, as well as bolstering the state's farmers and our farmers' markets. In fact, according to the Washington State University Nutrition Education program, in Washington State, the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program reaches about 8,000 lower-income older adults each year in 35 of my State's 39 counties. In 2003, 472 farms, 49 farmers markets, four roadside stands and one community supported agriculture program participated in the SFMNP and the participating seniors in Washington state purchased approximately 90 tons of fresh produce while learning about the role of nutrition in their health in preventing chronic disease.

The bill that I am introducing today aims to better address the growing demand and need for the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program in four ways.

First, the bill would increase funding from $15 million to $25 million for the program in fiscal year 2005 and continue to expand the program by $25 million each year, until the program's expiration in 2007, meaning that the SFMNP would be funded at not less than $50 million in fiscal year 2006, and at not less than $75 million in 2007.

Second, the bill specifies that funds made available through this act will remain available to the program until exhausted. As such, any remaining funds from one fiscal year will roll over into the subsequent fiscal year budget for the SFMNP.

Third, provisions in the bill support administrative costs. Not more than ten percent of available funds in a fiscal year can be used to cover the operating expenses of the SFMNP.

Finally, the bill grants authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to expand the list of foods eligible for purchase to include minimally processed foods, such as honey, as deemed appropriate.

We should not forget, too, that an obvious, positive outgrowth of the program is the inherent ability of the SFMNP program to strengthen local economies and communities while at the same time works to preserve farmland and open spaces. I sincerely appreciate that the Washington Association of Area Agencies on Aging, as well as the Washington State Farmers Market Association, are supporting this legislation.

The legislation I am introducing today will go a long way in expanding the amount of funding available for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. We all know that value and importance that individuals of all ages eat their requisite servings of vegetables and fruit each day. Such foods are high in fiber and lower the risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, in addition to colon and rectal cancer, high blood pressure, and obesity. However, food costs can be a significant barrier to developing and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. In establishing the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program in 2002, Congress recognized that it is important to provide a means for low-income seniors to have access to fruits and vegetables. The legislation I introduce today will further our nation's commitment to ensuring the health of our nation's seniors, and I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

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