Floor Statements

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, today, I proudly announce my support for S. 1307, a bill implementing the Dominican Republic-Central America- United States Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA. There is much in CAFTA that helps Washington State.

I generally support trade agreements such as CAFTA because I believe that free trade is the best way to raise the standard of living for all Americans and for all people in other countries with which we trade. I believe that once other nations have access to our goods, culture and ideas, we will find that the world will adopt the best attributes of America, including our values.

The alternative to supporting CAFTA is unworkable. If CAFTA fails, the Nation's efforts to negotiate future trade agreements will be badly damaged. Congress has to pass CAFTA because it offer benefits to all CAFTA signatories, and because in light of the broader trade context our negotiators would suffer a setback if CAFTA does not pass.

Washington State has historically benefited from liberalizing trade laws. For example, in the first year following the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, Washington State exports to Chile more than doubled. And since NAFTA passed in 1993 Washington exports to Canada and Mexico have increased by 130 percent.

CAFTA promises to confer some of the same benefits on Washingtonians. CAFTA makes all U.S. exports to the CAFTA countries duty free in 10 years, and most of these tariffs are eliminated immediately. U.S. exports to these countries are often subject to tariffs, and CAFTA brings us closer to trade parity. In particular, Washington State's pear, cherry, apple and potato growers will see most tariffs on their crops immediately reduced to zero as soon as CAFTA is implemented. These farmers have low enough profit margins without having to contend with high tariffs on their goods, and tariffs place our farmers at a competitive disadvantage with farmers in other countries that are not subject to high tariffs. Our farmers need and deserve better conditions for selling their goods to the seven CAFTA countries.

In total, Washington State exported $113 million worth of goods to CAFTA countries in 2004, including oil and coal exports, crops, computers and electronics, processed foods, machinery manufactures and paper, and Washington's trade relationship with CAFTA countries increased by 251 percent from 2000 to 2004. These goods are heavily tariffed under current international trade laws with the CAFTA countries.

But under CAFTA, Washington's apple and pear growers will see duties that are currently up to 25 percent on their goods reduced to zero, and our grape growers will see 20 percent tariffs zeroed out. Tariffs on Washington's raspberry growers will be phased out over 5 to 15 years, depending on the CAFTA country, and our dairy farmers, some of whose products are subject to 60 percent tariffs, will see those tariffs phased out over 20 years. The Washington beef industry will see 30 percent

tariffs immediately eliminated on some of their products, and other beef product tariffs will be phased out over 10 years. Wheat and barley duties are zeroed out immediately, and potato growers will see some tariffs immediately eliminated and most others phased out over 15 years.

Washington State is likely to see its exports to CAFTA countries dramatically increase over time, once CAFTA is enacted. For example, Northwest Washington is likely to see its agricultural exports to CAFTA countries increase as CAFTA is gradually implemented up until 2024, from $2.1 million to $3.8 million, and Central Washington is likely to see agricultural products shoot up from $14.5 million to $22.4 million during the same 20-year stretch. These heavy increases mean more jobs for Washingtonians, at a time when the State is just now turning things around economically.

Nationally, CAFTA is also important. CAFTA countries make up the tenth largest export partner for American goods, making that region a larger trading partner for the U.S. than Australia, Brazil or India.

While I support CAFTA, I acknowledge that it could do more to protect labor rights in the CAFTA countries, it could be better on the environment and it could better take account of human rights in those nations. Therefore, CAFTA should not be seen in a vacuum. CAFTA is merely one part of what must be a larger strategy for addressing our workers' needs in a rapidly evolving world economy, and for addressing the economic and political problems of our neighbors to the South.

I firmly believe that in the long run, encouraging export-led growth in developing countries will help raise incomes, tighten labor markets, and improve job standards in those countries. Opening markets will drive political changes too. Open markets and democracy are the two prevailing political ideas of the present, and they will become even more prevalent in the future. America has to remain the leader in exporting these powerful ideas to the entire world, and CAFTA is one more step we can take to accomplish this.

I also strongly believe that our trade policy should couple trade liberalization with worker retraining and other creative, proactive and responsive forms of labor assistance. Globalization will happen no matter what. So we need to be prepared for these changes, and help assure that America's working families do not take the brunt of them.

That is why I am working with my colleagues to fully implement improvements to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, TAA. TAA provides workers with access to retraining programs, income support, and other benefits when they lose their jobs due to trade. And TAA works--the Government Accountability Office reports that after TAA was last modified, most workers are enrolling in training services sooner, from 107 days in Fiscal Year 2002 to 38 days in Fiscal Year 2003.

TAA must be expanded. We should raise the cap on TAA funds, since 35 States in Fiscal Year 2004 did not have sufficient funds to cover funds those States obligated and paid to TAA-eligible workers. After Trade Promotion Authority passed, we doubled the TAA program to help cushion difficult transitions of workers whose jobs are lost because of trade. We should plan ahead and increase TAA again, to coincide with enactment of CAFTA.

TAA and similar programs must also work better. We must plan ahead for changes in our economy--these changes are inevitable, and our long- term plan at training our workers to be prepared for these changes will determine whether America competes in the global market.

The 21st century marketplace is dynamic, and public policy must also be flexible if we are to best take advantage of these changes. As our economy continues to shift from a predominantly manufacturing base to a heavy service sector economy, government programs such as TAA must continue to reflect these changes.

Specifically, I support proposals such as the Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act, which would enhance TAA by extending the program to service sector and secondary service workers. Currently only manufacturing workers qualify for these benefits. Including service sector workers merely reflects the realities of our economy--America will lose somewhere between 500,000 and 3 million service sector jobs to other countries in the next 10 years. I want to emphasize that these are not net job losses, but they will result in people being displaced. People with service sector jobs have families in need just as sure as manufacturing workers do. They should share in the TAA program.

We can also close loopholes that make it difficult for some older workers to participate in an add-on to TAA that was meant specifically for them. Now that we have identified these loopholes, it is good government to close them. Our older workforce, some of whom are not the ideal candidates for longer training courses, will benefit from closing these loopholes and once this is done they will be placed in new jobs more quickly.

Those concerns, especially about the need to make preparing our workforce for the global economy a higher priority, can be addressed by Congress and the administration in the coming months, and I will work to achieve these goals moving forward. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Ambassador Portman be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, though we have much to do to make opening markets fairer to all those affected, CAFTA is good for Washingtonians, especially our farmers, it is good for America, and in the long run it will be good for the people living in CAFTA countries too. I will vote for CAFTA and continue to work to maximize what Washingtonians get out of globalization, while also working to minimize the negative side effects that sometimes result from it. Aggressively balancing the impact of opening markets is the track we must all accept. America's economic future hangs in the balance.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss regulatory oversight of energy futures markets. Would the distinguished chairman of Agriculture Committee engage me and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, in a colloquy on this subject?

Senators Feinstein, Levin, and I have raised serious concern about off exchange futures transactions in energy commodities under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In the wake of the Western energy crisis, we believe that there needs to be adequate Federal authority over these energy markets and that they be more transparent in order to prevent fraud and manipulation.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Senate energy bill that this body has passed today, on a resounding bipartisan vote of 85 to 12. For those of us on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, this day has been long in coming. Today is another milestone in the effort to craft a new energy plan for America; legislation that has been swirling around Capitol Hill in one form or another for at least the last 4 years.

I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee for the skill and consideration they have shown in navigating a path forward for this legislation. It has taken a lot of work. But today's vote represents a concerted, bipartisan effort to find the compromises that can help move our nation forward on an energy strategy to meet the needs of a 21st century economy. The result has been a cleaner, more transparent process, and a cleaner energy plan for America.

I will not stand before this body today and suggest that this legislation is the solution to all of the challenges we are facing--and will continue to face for decades to come--when it comes to our national energy security. There are provisions contained in this lengthy and complicated bill that I do not agree with; and there are areas where this legislation does not go nearly far enough, particularly when it comes to curbing our dangerous overdependence on foreign oil imports, and tackling the emerging threat of global climate change. However, I am supporting this legislation because it represents a modest improvement on the status quo; and because I believe that this legislation is the beginning--rather than the end--of the Senate's consideration of these issues.

I have participated in this debate in the Energy Committee and on the Senate floor for the past 4 years, and I have listened intently to many of my colleagues and what they have had to say. I can tell you this: it seems to me that there is more agreement in this body today than at any other point in my memory as to the nature of the energy challenges we are facing as a nation, and the critical importance of addressing these problems if we want to ensure American competitiveness and economic security in the coming decades.

Four years ago, I do not believe many of us were discussing the impact of foreign, state-owned oil companies on our energy security. Few of us had recognized the emergence of China and India and what those countries' growing thirst for petroleum could mean to the dynamics of world energy markets and the American economy. Many Senators were skeptical about the potential market transformation that could occur with new hybrid vehicle technologies. Four years ago, there was far less consensus about the promise of new biofuel technologies using an array of different crops and materials. These technologies are capable of transforming the U.S. renewable fuels business from a boutique industry dominated by corn-growers to a real, national industry capable of displacing significant amounts of imported petroleum.

This Senate has come along way in four years--in thought, if not yet in deed. The fact the majority of Senators now recognize the need to address in a meaningful and binding way the threat of global climate change; and the fact that the majority of my colleagues now seem to recognize the perfect storm of economic and national security issues posed by our dependence on foreign oil are significant milestones. But I am disappointed that we do not yet have the same degree of unanimity on what to do about it.

That is why this legislation--and the debate about this legislation's successes and failings--is just the beginning. Our national energy security is an issue with which this country and its leaders absolutely must continue to grapple. When it comes to our Nation's oil dependence, America can and must make more progress. We must acknowledge the realities of geology and the international marketplace. Given that the U.S. sits on just 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we cannot drill our way to energy independence. And when any policymaker looks at the distribution of where the rest of those oil reserves lie-- two-thirds of them in the Middle East--it becomes painfully obvious that the U.S. must step up and tackle this challenge head-on. Anything less jeopardizes our economic future and our national security.

I fundamentally believe that securing our Nation's energy future is among the biggest challenge faced by our generation. It is a challenge by which future generations of Americans will measure us. We did not get the job done with this particular Energy bill when it comes to America's energy security and dependence on foreign oil. Nor did we finish the job when it comes to the issue of global climate change. So this year, next year and for the foreseeable future, this Senator will stand up and ask her colleagues to pay more than lip service to these issues. The spirited and thoughtful debate that has characterized our consideration of this bill must guide us as we move forward to tackle these challenges. I believe it can be done. It must be done. And this Senator stands ready to work with her colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reach meaningful

solutions to what are some of the most difficult economic security issues of our time.

But as I said at the outset, I do believe that this legislation will move our Nation forward in a number of other important ways. A comprehensive Energy bill touches every sector of our economy. The nature of our existing energy infrastructure is complex and interdependent, yet regionally diverse. Moreover, a maze of interlocking Federal and State regulatory authorities guide the production and sale of energy supplies in this country. For all of these reasons, the task of crafting a ``comprehensive'' energy policy is a massive undertaking. But even as this legislation has failed to address certain issues to this Senator's satisfaction, we have taken a number of important steps forward.

While we have not done nearly enough to address our economy's petroleum dependence--and hence, our dependence on foreign petroleum-- this bill does put in place the basics for creation of a robust, American biofuels industry that can someday displace significant portions of our energy imports. While agricultural producers across the U.S. have long touted the energy and economic security benefits of fostering a domestic biofuels production industry, this country has nevertheless lagged behind in developing the technologies that would make a national biofuels strategy a reality. For example, 90 percent of the ethanol production in the U.S. is derived from corn and is produced in just five Midwestern States. Meanwhile, other nations such as Brazil have taken the lead on producing biofuels from other crops, and in the process have diversified their economies and energy supplies, begun to minimize their dependence on foreign petroleum, and lowered prices for consumers.

The key to growing this industry for the U.S. is investing in the demonstration and commercialization of new technologies that will make it possible to produce biofuels from a more diverse array of crops, including wheat straw and other biomass readily available in places like Washington State.

The Senate Energy bill contains a number of provisions key to moving forward on a national biofuels strategy. Specifically, I was pleased to add a number of measures that will help spur biofuels production in the Pacific Northwest. Making ethanol and biodiesel from more diverse feedstocks--in more regions of the country--is essential to making biofuels a sustainable and cost-effective solution to our Nation's emerging energy needs.

The Senate Energy bill contains a provision I authored to establish an ``Advanced Biofuel Technologies Program.'' The new program provides $550 million over 5 years to demonstrate technologies for production of ethanol and biodiesel. The measure directs the Secretary of Energy to work toward developing and demonstrating no fewer than four different conversion technologies for producing cellulosic-based ethanol; and five technologies for coproducing biodiesel and value-added bioproducts. In other words, it would provide Federal support for universities, private sector researchers and entrepreneurs who are striving to invent the next generation of biofuels technology, and help demonstrate them in real-world applications. The program also directs the Secretary to prioritize the demonstration of proj- ects that will enhance the geographical diversity of alternative fuels production, and focus on developing technology related to feedstocks that represent 10 percent or less of our Nation's existing ethanol and biodiesel production--agricultural products like wheat straw, canola and mustard that are readily available in Washington State and throughout the Pacific Northwest.

But in addition to pioneering the next generation of technologies, the Senate Energy bill would provide important market-based incentives for the very first producers of new sources of biofuel. The Senate bill is more ambitious that previous energy bills, as well as this year's House-passed version, in setting a target to produce 8 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. But in addition, it contains my provision to more than double the incentives for refiners to use ethanol made from cellulosic sources such as wheat straw, and to ensure that by 2013 the U.S. is producing at least 250,000 gallons of ethanol from these new sources. These provisions are designed to help build a market for the very first producers of ethanol from nontraditional, noncorn sources-- an important way to help move the technology toward broader commercialization.

The Senate Energy bill also recognizes that a national biofuels strategy is in the long-term energy security interests of the U.S., and provides Federal support for this emerging industry. First, the legislation authorizes Federal loan guarantees for the first cellulosic ethanol facilities that produce 15 million gallons of ethanol or more. Multiple sites in the Pacific Northwest are vying to be among the first in the U.S. to produce cellulosic ethanol. In addition, the bill would extend the biodiesel excise tax credit through 2010. Otherwise slated to expire in 2006, the tax credit is important to the very first refiners and distributors of biodiesel in Washington State, who are using this tax credit to lower costs to consumers at the pump. I believe all of these are valuable provisions that will contribute to our national energy security and put farmers across the country in the biofuels business.

In addition to the renewable fuels standard, this legislation will diversify our Nation's energy supplies with the inclusion of a renewable portfolio standard that would require 10 percent of our electricity to come from sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. This legislation also extends the renewable production tax credit and the renewable energy production incentive program to support the drive to diversify our sources of electricity.

I should also note that this legislation contains consensus reliability standards, to ensure mandatory rules are in place to govern operation of our electricity grid--an important provision that I have championed since I arrived in the Senate, and an effort that was initially begun by my predecessor, Senator Slade Gorton.

I was also pleased to have a role in crafting provisions to promote cutting-edge research and development in the area of ``smart grid'' technologies, which will build intelligence into our existing energy infrastructure in a way that improves both efficiency and reliability. This legislation also includes incentives for the adoption of existing technologies that can aid reliability such as ``smart meters,'' which give utilities and their customers real-time information about energy usage.

This legislation also takes an important step to ensure that we are meeting the workforce needs of the electric utility sector. The National Science Foundation and energy industry interests have noted that as the baby boom sector of our workforce retires, a lack of training capacity will lead to a growing shortage of qualified engineers and innovators. Language that I worked to add to the bill in committee will ensure that the Energy and Labor Secretaries are closely monitoring our energy workforce, including the availability of power and transmission engineers, and will authorize the Federal Government to provide grants for appropriate workforce training investments. All of these reliability-related provisions will help ensure the stability of the electricity grid, which powers every sector of the American economy.

While I am on the topic of electricity, I must mention some of what I believe are among the most notable achievements of this legislation. There are provisions of this bill that I have championed related to Enron and the market manipulation that occurred during the Western energy crisis, which I believe represent the first meaningful Congressional response to the massive public mugging that took place. Certainly, Congress enacted aggressive new accounting reforms in the wake of Enron's collapse. But we have not yet done the same when it comes to our Federal energy laws.

I spoke at the outset about how the Senate has at least turned the corner in recognizing the problems posed by climate change and foreign oil dependence. Similarly, some of my colleagues may recall that, 4 years ago, many at first didn't believe that any market manipulation had taken place in the West. But with the release of Enron's smoking gun memos outlining the manipulation schemes, additional audiotape evidence that has surfaced since

then, the guilty pleas of energy traders who executed these schemes four years later, this Senate has reevaluated its position, based on facts that are now a matter of public record.

I am optimistic about the notion that this Senate, in the foreseeable future, will get serious about addressing climate change and oil dependence because I have seen a sea change occur in the Senate on an energy issue before--in particular, on the issue of market manipulation and the need to protect our Nation's consumers against later-day Enrons. The Energy bill we passed today contained a number of important provisions to incorporate the lessons we learned from the Western energy crisis.

First, it puts in place a broad statutory ban on all forms of market manipulation in our Nation's electricity and natural gas markets. Second, it gives Federal authorities the ability to ban traders and executives implicated in energy market manipulation schemes from participating in the utility industry.

The Securities Exchange Commission has had this authority for decades and used it in some high-profile instances of individuals engaged in securities fraud. However, this authority does not currently exist in Federal energy law. Added unanimously as amendments during the Senate Energy Committee's markup of the bill, these provisions were inspired by recent court cases in which it is alleged that some of the same energy traders overheard on the now-infamous Enron audiotapes have been implicated in subsequent market manipulation schemes in other regions of the country.

Lastly, this legislation contains a provision of particular importance to my Washington State constituents. Section 1270 of this bill would prohibit a Federal bankruptcy court from forcing Washington State's Snohomish Public Utility District--PUD--and its customers to fork over another $122 million to Enron. Specifically, the provision prohibits the bankruptcy court from enforcing payments on power contracts that are unjust, unreasonable or contrary to the public interest. The provision was written to target manipulated power contracts between Enron and utilities in the West. The contracts were cancelled when the energy giant began its scandalous slide into bankruptcy. But once they were cancelled, Enron turned around and sued utilities for ``termination payments,'' seeking to collect profits on power that was never even delivered.

While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--has been conducting its proceedings to provide remedies for the consumers harmed by market manipulation, Enron has nevertheless continued pursuing collection of these ``termination payments'' in bankruptcy court. In fact, the court has already ruled that other Enron victims--Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company--should have to pay these fees, which come to more than $330 million for the two Nevada utilities. The court went so far as to enjoin FERC from proceeding with its own specific inquiry into whether Enron is owed the termination payments in those cases.

The provision included in this bill says very clearly to FERC, ``Do your job to protect consumers, and when you make a decision, that decision will stand.'' Interpreting our Nation's energy consumer protection laws is not the job of a bankruptcy judge. This responsibility lies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

I am aware that these provisions are in stark contrast to those included in the legislation passed by the House of Representatives. The House bill would ban only one type of manipulation scheme made infamous by Enron--roundtrip trading. It would do nothing to ban proven market manipulators from future employment in the energy business. And most inexplicably, it would actually give later-day Enrons a license to steal. It would lock in profits for would-be market manipulators under the guise of ``contract sanctity.'' I recognize that reconciling these issues with the House may be difficult. But when it comes to the deeds of Enron--and putting in place tough new laws to make sure such a wide- ranging fraud is never again perpetrated against our Nation's consumers--I believe the Senate will have the American people firmly on our side.

In addition to these very important provisions, I must also make a few comments on other matters of importance in this legislation's electricity title. I regret that during the course of the debate on this bill, there was not enough time to discuss more fully its treatment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act--PUHCA. It is important that this silence not be confused with disinterest. It is because of the consumer protections provisions included in the bill-- some that I have mentioned already--that this issue has not caused an uproar, as it has in the past.

It was crucial to me that, in PUHCA's stead, this bill include the refinements and enhancements of FERC's merger review authority that were worked out by Senators Bingaman and Domenici. I must still state my profound uneasiness with the notion that we are repealing one of our Nation's fundamental consumer protection laws at a time when many of us are concerned about mergers and consolidation within the utility industry. And I remain concerned that we have not done enough to address the issue of cross-subsidization of unregulated affiliates by utilities that are owned by the same holding company.

I ask my colleagues to remember: Enron was a company willing to turn a profit by any means necessary; but it was presented with a market and regulatory environment that presented innumerable opportunities for abuse. We have given FERC the tools in this bill to prevent those abuses; let's hope they take this responsibility seriously.

The bill's repeal of PUHCA is predicted by some to usher in a new wave of utility mergers. Consolidation can be beneficial, but it can also foreclose competition, frustrate effective regulation and create inefficiencies. Let us hope that Federal and State regulators both take their responsibilities to protect consumers seriously.

PUHCA repeal lifts diversification and investment bans that the leading financial rating agencies have determined were critical in protecting the financial health of utilities and preventing bad business investments. Let us hope that we don't regret this decision.

Again, this bill requires steps to prevent cross-subsidization when utilities merge, but is silent on the need to prevent cross- subsidization by those utilities that don't merge. Let us hope that consumers and independent competitors do not suffer from this decision.

I sincerely hope history will prove this Senator's instincts and skepticism wrong on the topic of utility cross-subsidization and PUHCA repeal--because otherwise, it is American ratepayers and investors who will be paying the price. But as I said, it is the consumer protections in this bill today that have led me to view this as a reasonable compromise. In addition to the provisions I mentioned before, this legislation also includes improved language on market transparency, accountability standards for the Nation's Regional Transmission Organizations--RTOs--and the protection of transmission rights needed to serve consumers, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

Let me be perfectly clear: the provisions that I have mentioned, taken together, are the minimum needed in order to meet the needs of electric consumers. They were essential in earning the support of this Senator. Last Congress, one of the key factors that led to the defeat of the Energy bill was the failure of the conference report to protect electric consumers. While I believe we can and should do more, I commend both the Senators from New Mexico for their efforts. But their efforts will be wasted if the other body does not realize that these provisions are essential for final passage of an energy bill conference report.

It is also important to note that the Senate legislation we have passed today avoids the gratuitous special interest deals in the House bill--such as giving groundwater polluting MTBE manufacturers a free ride on clean up liability. It moves forward without the rollbacks of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act that are included in the House legislation. The Senate has spoken out against these bad environmental policies and we stuck to those principles in this bill.

We stuck to those principles and we worked across the aisle, in good faith at every turn. I hope the other body across the Capitol has paid some attention to this process. If leaders in the House are serious about delivering energy legislation to the President's desk for signature, then they will realize that a similar effort will be required during the conference on this legislation.

Make no mistake: the Senate Energy bill is far from perfect. There are missed opportunities. There are provisions that I outright oppose, such as surveying for oil and gas areas on the Outer Continental Shelf that are protected by drilling moratoria, originally established by President George H.W. Bush. But there are many, many more provisions in this legislation that I wholeheartedly support.

This bill positions the U.S. to make many of the right investments in energy research and development. It includes important measures to diversify both our domestic sources of biofuels and electricity. And it contains many important consumer protections for our Nation's energy ratepayers. In other words, the Senate Energy bill contains many of the basics necessary for our Nation to start moving in the right direction. It is a modest step. Yet I believe we should take this step, if we are committed to moving our country--even more aggressively in the coming years--toward an energy policy that will sustain American competitiveness in a rapidly-evolving global economy.

I thank my friends and colleagues who serve on the Senate Energy Committee, for the thoughtful and substantive consideration they gave a number of key aspects of this legislation. And again, my thanks to the chairman and ranking member for their leadership in navigating what were at times turbulent waters, with certain aspects of this bill. We will be counting on those navigational skills as this legislation moves toward conference with the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, Section 261 of the underlying bill contains provisions designed to reform the hydroelectric relicensing process. These provisions are the result of a hard-won compromise, and I thank the chairman and ranking member, along with Senators Craig, Smith and Feinstein for their leadership on this issue. In particular, these provisions significantly differ from previous House- and Senate- passed versions, as they will allow States, tribes and the public to propose alternative licensing conditions, and will further allow these entities to trigger the trial-type hearing process outlined in this section. I believe these public participation provisions are key improvements in this legislation. I would also like to more fully explore the process by which alternative conditions proposed by these stakeholders should be considered.

Before an alternative condition or prescription to a license may be approved, the Secretary must concur with the judgment of the license applicant that it will either cost significantly less to implement, or result in improved operation of the hydro project for electricity production--at the same time it provides for adequate protection of the resource--or in the case of fishway prescriptions, will be no less protective than the fishway initially proposed by the Secretary. This provision does not provide the license applicant a so-called veto power over proposed alternatives, because this judgment requires the Secretary's concurrence. In addition, it is the Senate's intent that these judgments be supported by substantial evidence as required by Section 313 of the Federal Power Act. I would like to ask the senior Senator from New Mexico the following question: If the Secretary determines that a license applicant's judgment has been based on inaccurate data and thus fails to meet the test of being supported by substantial evidence, can the Secretary withhold his or her concurrence?

Mr. Domenici. The Senator from Washington is correct in expressing our intent that the license applicant's judgment be supported by substantial evidence. It is not our intent to provide an incentive for applicants to provide poor data in order to prompt the rejection of a condition by other stakeholders. If the Secretary of a resource agency determines that the evidence provided by the license applicant is of insufficient quality and therefore does not meet the substantial evidence test, the Secretary should not concur with the license applicant's judgment in the matter.

Mr. President, I wish to clarify for my colleagues the intent of section 1270 of the underlying Energy bill, which is a provision of extreme importance to my Washington State constituents. Ratepayers in my State were harmed by the Western energy crisis and the manipulation and fraudulent practices of Enron in wholesale electricity markets. A number of proceedings remain underway at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will determine the relief granted to consumers harmed by Enron's unlawful trading practices. An important issue that remains is whether utilities--such as Washington State's Snohomish County Public Utility District--should be forced to make termination payments to Enron, for power Enron never delivered in the midst of its scandalous collapse into bankruptcy.

The intent of section 1270 of the underlying bill and the technical correction we have adopted today is simply to affirm that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine whether these termination payments should be required. This provision expresses Congress's belief that the issues surrounding the potential requirement to make termination payments associated with wholesale power contracts are inseparable and inextricably linked to the commission's jurisdictional responsibilities.

This provision in no way prejudices or predetermines FERC's decisions in those matters. During the Senate Energy Committee's work on this legislation, the supporters of this amendment and I initially considered offering an amendment that would have gone further to require a certain outcome, had the commission made certain findings. We chose not to pursue that amendment in response to concerns that were raised by colleagues. Section 1270 of this legislation is completely neutral regarding how the commission uses its authority under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act. As such, the provision does not in any way implicate what is known as the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, related to which standard FERC should apply to its review of jurisdictional wholesale power contracts.

The clarifications to section 1270 effectuated by the amendment accepted today are consistent with the committee's intent in adopting section 1270. In addition, they are completely consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

The committee sought assurances that section 1270 would not disturb underlying legal doctrines such as the Mobile-Sierra doctrine or the separation of powers principles. The amendment provides further clarity that section 1270 is not intended to otherwise disturb or modify the Mobile-Sierra doctrine by adding the phrase ``or contrary to the public interest.'' This phrase, when coupled with the standard recital of FERC's exclusive authority to determine whether a charge is just and reasonable, makes it clear that Congress is making no pronouncements regarding the manner in which FERC exercises its authority, but rather only that it is the appropriate forum to resolve these issues. Congress is giving no guidance to FERC on Mobile-Sierra one way or another through this provision.

The committee's overarching intent with respect to section 1270 was to ensure that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and not the bankruptcy court involved in the Enron matter, decides all of the issues surrounding whether termination payments are lawful. The addition of the phrase ``rate schedules and contracts entered thereunder'' ensures that result.

In addition, this clarification is completely consistent with Supreme Court decisions permitting Congress to give a Federal agency the authority to resolve matters that are also normally addressed by our judicial branch of government. As the Supreme Court stated in a case entitled Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 854 (1986),

``looking beyond form to the substance of what Congress has

done'', we are persuaded that the congressional authorization

of limited CFTC jurisdiction over a narrow class of common

law claims as an incident to the CFTC's primary, and

unchallenged, adjudicative function does not create a

substantial threat to the separation of powers. Thomas v.

Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 473 U.S. 568, 589

(1985).

Similarly, in this instance, the grant of authority to FERC to decide this matter is exceedingly narrow insofar as it relates solely to the legality of Enron collecting additional profits in the form of termination payments for power not delivered. Clearly, it is directly related to the agency's core function to ensure just and reasonable rates and guard against market manipulation. Moreover, these are public rights that are at stake in this dispute--the rights of electric ratepayers across the country to just and reasonable rates, rights that have existed under federal statute since 1935--and not mere private rights that should be resolved by a non-article III bankruptcy tribunal. Accordingly, the clarification provided by the amendment is completely consistent with Supreme Court precedent on the separation of powers principle.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to a particular section of the comprehensive energy bill (S. 10) that we have been discussing for the past 2 weeks. My comments focus specifically on section 1270 of this legislation.

Section 1270 was an amendment I offered in the Energy & Natural Resources Committee mark-up of this legislation. It was accepted after considerable debate and discussion, on a bipartisan voice vote. Since then, I have continued to work with my colleagues on the Energy Committee, to further clarify and perfect this language. In fact, I was pleased to work with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, on a technical amendment to this language, amendment No. 895, to refine it even further.

This provision, entitled ``Relief for Extraordinary Violations,'' is extremely important to the consumers of Washington State and ratepayers in other parts of the West, who bore tremendous costs as a result of Enron's schemes to manipulate our wholesale electricity markets. The principle at the heart of this provision is simple. The consumers of Washington State must not be forced to become the deep-pockets for Enron's bankruptcy. The same ratepayers who have paid so dearly for the Western energy crisis and Enron's schemes to manipulate markets should not be forced to pay even more--four years later--for power that Enron never even delivered.

I must thank my colleagues on the Energy Committee for their thoughtful consideration of this issue, particularly my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest and West as a whole who have seen first-hand the toll the crisis has taken on our economy and our constituents. I must also express my gratitude to the rest of the members of the committee, and to the chairman and ranking member for indulging what was a very thoughtful debate on this issue.

At the conclusion of the committee debate, this Senator was extremely satisfied; first, because of the very nature of the debate itself, in which--for almost an entire hour--a bipartisan group of Senators focused their valuable time and attention on a situation that is highly complicated, and likely unprecedented in the history and application of our Nation's energy laws. And second, because, at the end of the day, the committee struck a blow for justice and for Western consumers. It was an important statement. This is not the kind of country where we should reward Enron for its criminal conspiracy to commit fraud; a fraud of historic proportions perpetrated against the consumers of the West.

As my colleagues appreciate by now, my State was particularly ravaged by the western energy crisis of 2000-2001. One of my State's public utility districts, Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, had a long-term contract with Enron, to purchase power. The contract was terminated once Enron began its scandalous collapse into bankruptcy. Nonetheless, Enron has asserted before the bankruptcy court the right to collect all of the profits it would have made under the contract through so-called ``termination payments.'' Enron has made this claim even though Enron never delivered the power under the contract, even though Enron had obtained its authority to sell power fraudulently, and even though Enron was in gross violation of its legal authority to sell power at the very time the contract was entered into. This has been demonstrated by the criminal guilty pleas of the senior managers of Enron's Western power trading operation, in which it has been admitted that Enron was engaged in a massive criminal conspiracy to rig electric markets and rip off electric ratepayers. But it has been further illustrated by the now-infamous Enron tapes, in which Enron employees discuss many unsavory topics, including specifically how they were ``weaving lies together'' in their negotiations related to the contract with Snohomish.

I will tell my colleagues that there is no way under the sun that I believe my constituents owe Enron another penny. Not one single penny more. What this amendment does is ensure that, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC comes to a conclusion

later this year about how to cleanup the Enron mess, that the bankruptcy court cannot overturn FERC's decision about whether these ``termination payments'' are just, reasonable or in the public interest. It says to FERC, ``do your job to protect consumers, and when you make a decision, that decision will stand.'' Interpreting our nation's energy consumer protection laws is not the job of a bankruptcy judge.

Now, this Senator has a very strong opinion on this matter in general. I believe there is no way no stretch of the imagination, or interpretation of law in which these termination payments could be deemed just, reasonable or in the public interest, knowing everything we know today about what Enron did to the consumers of my state. In fact, during committee debate on the underlying provision in this bill, some of my colleagues suggested that we should just out-right abrogate these contracts; simply declare them null and void on their face. But what we recognized, relying on the legal expertise of the committee staff, is that an act like that--as tempting as it may seem--would pose certain constitutional issues. We recognized that this provision section 1270--is the best way for Congress to express its will in this matter.

I have, as my colleagues know, had substantial differences with FERC over the course of the past few years. But I am glad to say today, after 4 long years, it appears that the commission may be on the right track on this issue. This March, FERC issued a ruling in which the commission definitely found that the termination payments at issue here ``are based on profits Enron projected to receive under its long-term wholesale power contracts executed during the period when Enron was in violation of conditions of its market-based rate authority.'' For the first time, FERC found that Enron was in violation of its market-based rate authority at the time victimized utilities such as Washington's Snohomish PUD inked power sales contract with the now-bankrupt energy giant. That FERC process is on-track to wrap-up this year; but so long as that process is ongoing, utilities like Snohomish have been operating under the threat that the bankruptcy court would swoop in and demand payments for Enron, regardless of the pattern of market manipulation and fraud. In a series of rulings, the bankruptcy court has expressed its will to do just that. What this provision does is ensure the bankruptcy court cannot force these utilities and their consumers to make termination payments that are unjust, unreasonable or contrary to the public interest.

Section 1270 states that notwithstanding any other provision of law, and specifically the bankruptcy code, FERC ``shall have exclusive jurisdiction'' to make these determinations. Many of my colleagues might naturally assume that this provision merely sets forth what is already the case. But as I stated earlier, that is not necessarily the case. This provision is necessary and critical because the Federal bankruptcy court has already concluded that it will not defer to FERC with respect to whether our constituents will be required to make termination payments. Not only has the bankruptcy court not deferred to FERC, it compounded the seriousness of the issue by enjoining FERC from proceeding with its own specific inquiry into whether Enron is owed the termination payments. It forced FERC to stop on a matter that FERC had said required its special expertise.

Imagine making it through the arduous and frustrating, years-long process of proving the case against Enron and proving it to FERC, only to find out at the end of the day that the bankruptcy court would intervene and force these termination payments anyway. It is this situation--a collision between FERC and the bankruputcy court that this legislation addresses. And what the Congress is saying with this amendment, as counsel for the Energy Committee stated during our extended discussion, is that ``the Commission, not the bankruptcy [court], is the proper forum in which these question be resolved.'' That is certainly my view, and the view of many of us who represent ratepayers harmed by Enron.

I do not assume this position in denigration of the responsibility of the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court has an important role to play in our law and our economic community. However, I do think it is fair to say that it is a forum in which it naturally looks first to maximizing the assets of the estate. In contrast, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's first obligation is to protect our nation's ratepayers. In this very unique context, in which a seller of electricity that has fraudulently and criminally manipulated the market in violation of the tariffs on file with the commission--and where the seller is now seeking to reap the profits from that activity in the form of termination payments for power never delivered--what we are saying here, unequivocally, is that FERC is the forum in which this should be resolved. FERC is the entity that is supposed to look after our nation's ratepayers, and should have make the decision about whether termination payments are permissible under the Federal Power Act..

Given the nuanced, legal nature of this provision, I can assure my colleagues that this ``rifle shot,'' as the ranking minority member of the committee called it, is narrowly drawn in order to minimize any unanticipated impacts. It is only applicable to contracts entered into during the electricity crisis with sellers of electricity that manipulated the market to such an extent that they brought about unjust and unreasonable rates. There is only one such seller, and that is Enron, and there are only a handful of terminated contracts with Enron that haven't been resolved as of this date.

As a result, the amendment does not tamper with or otherwise disturb long-standing legal precedents. It does not tamper with the Mobile- Sierra doctrine, nor does it disturb other recent federal court decisions regarding the relationship of the bankruptcy courts and FERC in the context of the rejection in bankruptcy of FERC approved power sales contracts. It is, as the ranking minority member of the committee observed, a ``clean shot'' that ``affirms that FERC is the entity with the authority to review whether termination payments associated with cancelled Enron power contracts are lawful under the Federal Power Act.''

The ultimate disposition of this issue is of paramount concern to my constituents. It will decide whether they will be on the hook for more than $120 million, an amount that means more than $400 in the pocket of each ratepayer in Snohomish County, WA. It is critical that this issue be decided by the forum with the specialized expertise in matters relating to the sale of electricity with a stated mission of protecting ratepayers, and that is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Let me conclude by saying that I am very pleased that this provision has broad bipartisan support as well as the support of the Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Co-operative Association and the American Public Power Association. I believe my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, said it exactly right when this amendment was debated in committee, and I am extremely grateful for his support. He essentially said that no Senator Republican or Democrat should feel any limitation in ``lending their shoulder to this wheel,'' to get this situation fixed. Senator Smith, Senator Allen, and Senator Craig all played important roles during the mark-up in allowing this measure to move forward.

And I would be remiss if I did not mention the invaluable assistance from the Senators from Nevada on this issue the minority leader, Senator Reid, but also Senator Ensign. While Senator Ensign does not serve on the Energy Committee, he played a crucial role in ensuring that colleagues on both sides of the aisle understood the importance and reasonableness of this measure, and the importance of this provision to him and to the people of Nevada.

I thank my colleagues, look forward to the passage of this provision out of the Senate and to working together to ensure this critical measure is included in legislation that emerges from the Energy bill conference with the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein. This amendment is an important, commonsense tool that will provide States with the authority they need to protect their citizens' safety, security, and environment.

The underlying bill grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the siting of LNG facilities. Unfortunately, this model minimizes the opportunity for important State interests regarding public safety, security, and environmental concerns to be adequately addressed within the LNG siting process.

The Feinstein amendment is simple--it allows the Governor of affected States to approve, veto, or condition the siting of onshore liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals based on safety, security, environmental, and other concerns. In addition to providing Governors a clear role in bringing safety and security challenges to light, it also provides them with the tools to have those concerns adequately addressed.

Furthermore, the Feinstein amendment makes sense. Under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Governors of adjacent coastal States already have the ability to veto, approve, or condition the siting of LNG terminals located outside of their jurisdiction in Federal waters. Affected States should have the same authority over LNG facilities on their land or bodies of water that they already have over facilities sited in Federal waters. The Feinstein amendment grants states this important role over LNG facilities proposed within their jurisdiction.

The Feinstein amendment is critical to assure that safety and homeland security concerns related to LNG facilities are addressed. Since 1944 there have been 13 serious accidents at onshore LNG facilities. A recent LNG accident in Algeria killed 27 workers, injured 74 others, and was reported to be the worst petrochemical fire in Algeria in more than 40 years.

Several reports have cited the potential homeland security challenges posed by LNG terminals, delivery tankers and their role in a potential terrorist attack. The potential impacts of a well-coordinated terrorist attack are immense. A December 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratories, reported that an intentional LNG spill and resulting fire could cause ``major'' injuries to people and ``significant'' damage to structures within approximately .3 miles of the spill site, more moderate injuries and structural damage up to 1 mile from the spill site, and lower impacts out to 1.5 miles.

Given these potential safety and homeland security concerns, Governors should have a clear role to play in the siting of LNG facilities within their jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment that will support the rights of States to adequately protect their citizens' safety, security, and environment.

Mr. President, I rise today to make comments regarding the McCain-Lieberman amendment addressing global climate change. I will vote in support of this amendment today, because I believe this country must get serious about putting in place a mandatory program to address the very real problem of greenhouse gas emissions. My vote today is based on the fact I believe the United States must make a strong, economy-wide commitment to addressing the threat of climate change. But at the same time, I would also like to note that I retain serious reservations about a number of specific provisions added to this legislation since the Senate last considered it, during the 108th Congress.

Specifically, I have strong concerns about the nuclear provisions that were added to the McCain-Lieberman amendment. Nuclear technology may be emissions free, but it is not without substantial environmental costs measured on a completely different scale. This is a fact we in Washington know all too well, since our State is home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation--one of the biggest nuclear remediation projects in the world, including 53 million gallons of high-level nuclear waste stored in underground tanks located far too close to the Columbia River. Hanford's nuclear legacy is the result of production activities undertaken in the service of our national defense, from World War II through the Cold War. While there are obviously different challenges associated with defense and commercial wastes, Hanford nevertheless highlights for me the very significant distance we have yet to travel when it comes to grappling with the environmental costs of nuclear technology.

So while I wish my colleagues had not added certain provisions to their climate change proposal, I also understand--from the statements they have made on the floor today--that this amendment remains a work in progress. I believe the most important thing is to make sure we do not obscure what this amendment is really about. It is about the need for this country to step up, and to develop a real national strategy to address the issue of climate change.

I have spoken on this floor before about the scientific consensus that has emerged regarding the threat of global warming. I have addressed the issues of potential economic costs associated with climate change, particularly in the Pacific Northwest where nearly every sector of our economy relies in some way on the Columbia River. That river, in turn, is fed by mountain snowpack that many have projected may well be diminishing due to global warming. I have also spoken about this Nation's opportunity to take the lead in the global race for energy independence, to develop the next generation of energy technologies and create the jobs that will go along with them.

We are a problem-solving nation. When we are faced with a grave threat, we roll up our sleeves, put our heads together, and fix our problems; we don't push them off on our children and future generations. Climate change is too alarming a trend for us to ignore. For that reason, I will vote to support the McCain-Lieberman amendment.

Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Nelson- Martinez amendment, which would remove from the energy bill language that threatens decades-old Congressional and Executive Branch protections of sensitive coastal areas.

Protecting our Nation's fragile coasts is vitally important to my State's economy. On the west coast of Washington, the livelihoods of many rural communities depend on fishing, tourism, and shellfish farming. These multi-million dollar industries depend on clean water and pristine coastlines.

In addition, the U.S. has entered into numerous treaties with coastal Indian tribes. Many of these treaties guarantee tribal fishing and shellfishing harvesting rights. We cannot set in motion a process that could damage these tribes' ways of life, or allow any potential abrogation of our Nation's trust responsibilities.

Over the last several years, Washington State has been a leader in protecting sensitive marine areas. We worked closely with the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration to establish the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which encompasses most of the waters off of the northwest coast of Washington. The sanctuary is home to hundreds of species including marine mammals.

These mammals include the majestic Orca whale, whose 20 percent population decline over the past decade triggered a depleted listing under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and may lead to a threatened listing under the Endangered Species Act. I am very concerned that the exploratory activities allowed under the Senate Energy Bill could further harm this important symbol of the Northwest.

There are those who argue that a mere inventory of off-shore oil and gas supplies would do no harm. But I would ask my colleagues to consider emerging scientific evidence related to seismic technology used to conduct these surveys. Studies have suggested that these techniques are more invasive than originally believed--particularly when it comes to their acoustic disruption of marine ecosystems. Potential interference with the sensory capacities of marine mammals may jeopardize fundamental activities such as foraging for food, avoiding predators, and caring for young.

Moreover, many coastal residents of my State still shudder when they recall the thick carpets of oil, hundreds of dead birds, and great shards of oil-blackened timber that followed a 1989 oil spill off Grays Harbor. That disaster stained over 300 miles of coastline. An oil well blow out could be many times worse.

While some argue that this is simply a study, my response is that we should not spend millions of taxpayer dollars to study something we know we do not want to do. My constituents have told me they will not accept drilling rigs off the coast of communities like Willapa Bay, Neah Bay, or the mouth of the Columbia River.

There is an important question here. Where is it appropriate to drill, and where is it inappropriate? I agree with many of the Senators who have cited our Nation's growing need for more natural gas supplies. While I fully recognize this challenge, according to the EIA and MMS, the potential supplies off the coast of Washington are dwarfed by at least 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that we know already exists in Alaskan fields.

That is gas that is currently being pumped back into the ground, and it is the reason we need to expedite the construction of a pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 States. Building this pipeline would provide years of domestic gas supply, create thousands of jobs, and provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry.

The Pew Oceans Commission has highlighted the fragility of our oceans and coastal resources and recommended we look at our oceans in a holistic manner--not through the narrow lens of oil and gas production but to look at the overall benefits provided by the oceans.

I think the commission's findings confirm the need to reject any provision that moves us towards future oil and gas drilling in National Marine Sanctuaries or off the coasts of protected federally owned national parks and wildlife refuges.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

I thank the Senators from Florida for their leadership on this important issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 33rd anniversary of the enactment of title IX, a law that has opened doors to educational opportunities for countless women and girls across America.

Prior to passing title IX, roughly 295,000 girls participated in high school sports, and only about 25,000 played sports at the college level. When President Nixon signed the educational amendments of 1972 into law 33 years ago, skeptics claimed the law would do little to change women's participation in sports.

They could not have been more wrong. Recent data show that nearly 2.6 million high school girls and over 135,000 women in college participate in organized sports, constituting more than 40 percent of all high school athletes.

In Washington State, women at public colleges and universities represented less than one-third of most schools' athletes less than 15 years ago. Today, women represent 48 percent of athletes at public institutions of higher education in our State. As the numbers of girls participating in sports has increased, there has been a decrease in the number of girls who drop out of school, smoke, drink alcohol or have unwanted pregnancies. What's more, adolescent girls that participate in organized sports enjoy improved physical and mental health throughout their lives.

Today, 1 in every 2.5 girls participates in athletics, which is an 800-percent increase in participation rates since the enactment of title IX. Yet attempts to weaken title IX persist. Last March, the Department of Education issued a policy guidance that would weaken Title IX. The new clarification would allow institutions to avoid offering sports opportunities to women if a sufficient number of the student body failed to respond to an e-mail survey expressing interest in the program. This allows universities to use what may be highly questionable, potentially inaccurate e-mail survey results to prove that the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex have been accommodated, as title IX requires.

I am deeply concerned that this policy guidance represents the current administration's repeated attempts to diminish the enforcement of this very important law and believe that e-mail surveys will likely underestimate the need to expand athletic opportunities for women. The growth of opportunity for women and girls should not hang on the outcome of such informal means of data collection.

Our Nation has taken great strides toward equity, and title IX has played a significant role in that success. Millions of girls have access to opportunities that their mothers never knew. However, there is still much to be done before we can say that males and females are treated equability in education. Further progress hinges on our continued commitment to the principles of title IX and proper enforcement of the law.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairwoman Snowe to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2005.

Those of us from coastal States are especially aware of the important role of the U.S. Coast Guard in maritime security, marine safety, and search and rescue of mariners. In addition, the Coast Guard is instrumental in protecting our ocean resources through fisheries enforcement and response to oil spills.

We ask a lot of the Coast Guard, and I am grateful to the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard for their dedication and hard work. In this bill, I believe we have provided the Coast Guard with direction and authorizations that will help them better serve the public and meet the growing demands of the future.

The bill includes authorizations for Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 appropriations that are approximately 8 percent higher than for each preceding year. The bill also authorizes a number of important new programs including recommendations of the United States Commission on Ocean Policy, makes a number of changes sought by the Coast Guard for personnel and property management, and makes necessary technical corrections resulting from the Coast Guard's move from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security.

I am especially pleased that the committee legislation authorizes $47,500,000 for the Coast Guard's continued operation and maintenance of the Nation's only Polar Ice Breaker fleet. The administration's budget for fiscal year 2006 proposed transferring the funding for operation and maintenance of these vessels to the National Science Foundation, while leaving operational responsibility with the Coast Guard. No other Coast Guard asset is funded in this manner. Subjecting the icebreaker program to the budgeting decisions of another federal agency would definitely lead to an uncertain future for the Coast Guard's three icebreakers, ultimately undermining the ability of the Coast Guard to maintain these assets, and threatening the ability of the United States to maintain a presence in the polar regions over the long term. Section 203 of this legislation specifically calls on the Coast Guard to take all necessary measures to maintain its current fleet of polar icebreakers, rather than transferring this responsibility to the NSF.

This bill includes important funding for additional Coast Guard capital improvement priorities including $10,000,000 for the completion of the vessel traffic system upgrade for Puget Sound, one of two regions nationwide that has not yet benefited from this important upgrade in maritime traffic management and safety. This upgraded vessel traffic system will improve vessel traffic efficiency and safety throughout Washington's coastal waters. This funding also includes $3 million for completion of a Coast Guard administrative building on Pier 36 in Seattle that was badly damaged in the Olympia earthquake in 2001. This building is the Command Center for the Coast Guard's Puget Sound search and rescue and homeland security activities and these funds will greatly improve the Coast Guard's capabilities in this area.

I am also pleased that the bill directs the Coast Guard to report to the Commerce Committee on opportunities for, the feasibility of, co- locating Coast Guard assets and personnel at facilities of other armed services branches, and entering into cooperative agreements for carrying out various Coast Guard missions. One such facility where co- location may prove beneficial to both the Coast Guard and the Navy is Naval Station Everett, which will be included in the Coast Guard's evaluation.

In addition, the bill promotes the use of alternative fuels by requiring the Coast Guard to evaluate the feasibility, costs, and potential cost savings of using bio-diesel fuel in new and existing Coast Guard vehicles and vessels, with a focus on ports such as the Port of Seattle with very high vessel traffic density. Bio-diesel and other alternative vehicle fuels are already used by the Army at Fort Lewis, King County Metro Transit, and several school districts and cities in Washington State.

We have included in the bill a provision that would extend a requirement for non-tank vessels of over 400 gross tons, operating in waters out to 12 miles from the U.S., to prepare emergency response plans for oil spills. As we have learned with unfortunate oil spills in the past, such as the recent Daleo Passage Spill, every second matters. Requiring large vessels operating in coastal waters to have an emergency response plan will help prevent oil spill disasters and, in the event of a spill, mitigate their effects through preparedness.

Finally, the bill makes several important changes to the Coast Guard's management of personnel. One of these changes modifies current Coast Guard rules regarding recalling reservists for acts of terrorism and for longer periods of time. This provision ensures that the clock for the length of the recall begins to run on the first day that a reservist reports to active duty, including for training. Another provision ensures that the director of the Boating Safety Office remains a uniformed officer at the level of captain, in response to concerns from the boating safety community that the Coast Guard was eliminating this billet.

Effective Coast Guard operations are important for the State of Washington and for the Nation. I am pleased to join Senators Snowe, Stevens, and Inouye in introducing this legislation and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and with the Coast Guard to move this legislation quickly through the Committee and the Senate.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairwoman Snowe to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2005.

Those of us from coastal States are especially aware of the important role of the U.S. Coast Guard in maritime security, marine safety, and search and rescue of mariners. In addition, the Coast Guard is instrumental in protecting our ocean resources through fisheries enforcement and response to oil spills.

We ask a lot of the Coast Guard, and I am grateful to the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard for their dedication and hard work. In this bill, I believe we have provided the Coast Guard with direction and authorizations that will help them better serve the public and meet the growing demands of the future.

The bill includes authorizations for Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 appropriations that are approximately 8 percent higher than for each preceding year. The bill also authorizes a number of important new programs including recommendations of the United States Commission on Ocean Policy, makes a number of changes sought by the Coast Guard for personnel and property management, and makes necessary technical corrections resulting from the Coast Guard's move from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security.

I am especially pleased that the committee legislation authorizes $47,500,000 for the Coast Guard's continued operation and maintenance of the Nation's only Polar Ice Breaker fleet. The administration's budget for fiscal year 2006 proposed transferring the funding for operation and maintenance of these vessels to the National Science Foundation, while leaving operational responsibility with the Coast Guard. No other Coast Guard asset is funded in this manner. Subjecting the icebreaker program to the budgeting decisions of another federal agency would definitely lead to an uncertain future for the Coast Guard's three icebreakers, ultimately undermining the ability of the Coast Guard to maintain these assets, and threatening the ability of the United States to maintain a presence in the polar regions over the long term. Section 203 of this legislation specifically calls on the Coast Guard to take all necessary measures to maintain its current fleet of polar icebreakers, rather than transferring this responsibility to the NSF.

This bill includes important funding for additional Coast Guard capital improvement priorities including $10,000,000 for the completion of the vessel traffic system upgrade for Puget Sound, one of two regions nationwide that has not yet benefited from this important upgrade in maritime traffic management and safety. This upgraded vessel traffic system will improve vessel traffic efficiency and safety throughout Washington's coastal waters. This funding also includes $3 million for completion of a Coast Guard administrative building on Pier 36 in Seattle that was badly damaged in the Olympia earthquake in 2001. This building is the Command Center for the Coast Guard's Puget Sound search and rescue and homeland security activities and these funds will greatly improve the Coast Guard's capabilities in this area.

I am also pleased that the bill directs the Coast Guard to report to the Commerce Committee on opportunities for, the feasibility of, co- locating Coast Guard assets and personnel at facilities of other armed services branches, and entering into cooperative agreements for carrying out various Coast Guard missions. One such facility where co- location may prove beneficial to both the Coast Guard and the Navy is Naval Station Everett, which will be included in the Coast Guard's evaluation.

In addition, the bill promotes the use of alternative fuels by requiring the Coast Guard to evaluate the feasibility, costs, and potential cost savings of using bio-diesel fuel in new and existing Coast Guard vehicles and vessels, with a focus on ports such as the Port of Seattle with very high vessel traffic density. Bio-diesel and other alternative vehicle fuels are already used by the Army at Fort Lewis, King County Metro Transit, and several school districts and cities in Washington State.

We have included in the bill a provision that would extend a requirement for non-tank vessels of over 400 gross tons, operating in waters out to 12 miles from the U.S., to prepare emergency response plans for oil spills. As we have learned with unfortunate oil spills in the past, such as the recent Daleo Passage Spill, every second matters. Requiring large vessels operating in coastal waters to have an emergency response plan will help prevent oil spill disasters and, in the event of a spill, mitigate their effects through preparedness.

Finally, the bill makes several important changes to the Coast Guard's management of personnel. One of these changes modifies current Coast Guard rules regarding recalling reservists for acts of terrorism and for longer periods of time. This provision ensures that the clock for the length of the recall begins to run on the first day that a reservist reports to active duty, including for training. Another provision ensures that the director of the Boating Safety Office remains a uniformed officer at the level of captain, in response to concerns from the boating safety community that the Coast Guard was eliminating this billet.

Effective Coast Guard operations are important for the State of Washington and for the Nation. I am pleased to join Senators Snowe, Stevens, and Inouye in introducing this legislation and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and with the Coast Guard to move this legislation quickly through the Committee and the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and I call up amendment No. 784 and send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Michigan has

given a great deal of thought to this issue and to the modified amendment, and I yield the floor to him.

This amendment is technology-neutral. It simply lays out a vision that the United States should attempt to achieve over the course of the next 20 years. The only assumption underlying this amendment is that the United States has the ingenuity and innovative spirit to reverse the rising trend of American dependence on foreign oil imports. Today, foreign oil constitutes approximately 58 percent of our domestic supply, a figure that is projected to reach 68 percent by 2025. Because of the nature of world oil markets and the geologic fact that two-thirds of global reserves are located in the Middle East, the United States is on track to become increasingly dependent on OPEC to fuel our economy; and will be competing with developing nations such as China for access to these oil supplies. Because of the economic and national security implications of foreign oil dependence, this amendment simply states that it is in the national interest of the United States to attempt to curb our appetite for imported oil. The underlying bill provides a number of tools to help this country achieve the goal established by my amendment, and there are many potential pathways to its attainment. However, none of them are specifically assumed by the Cantwell amendment.

This amendment neither assumes nor proposes an increase in CAFE standards. In fact, some have erroneously concluded that increasing CAFE standards is the only means of achieving the goal established by the Cantwell amendment. Multiple analyses by national security-related organizations and others have concluded that increasing CAFE standards is not necessary to attain savings of 7.6 million barrels of oil a day by 2025. In addition, it is important to note that some have circulated erroneous estimates of CAFE standard increases necessary to achieve the goal in the Cantwell amendment, attributed to the Energy Information Administration, EIA. The staff of the EIA has said that these flawed estimates have no grounds in analyses performed by the EIA.

Because the amendment is technology-neutral and simply lays out a vision, accelerated ethanol production and use is not specifically assumed. However, there is no question that biofuels can play an important role in achieving the goal established by the Cantwell amendment, by displacing imported petroleum-based products with domestic fuel derived from plant matter. In fact, it has been estimated that increased domestic biofuels production can contribute more than half of the oil savings goal established by the Cantwell amendment. It is also worth noting that the underlying bill contains important provisions that will help accelerate the production of ethanol and other alternative fuels, including provisions I authored that would provide incentives, research, development and demonstration of processes to produce ethanol from cellulosic sources. While not specifically prescribed by the Cantwell energy security amendment, these measures would assist substantially in achieving the amendment's goal.

Again, increased use of biodiesel fuels and technology is not specifically assumed by the Cantwell amendment. However, these fuels can also help achieve the amendment's goal. It is worth noting that one of the barriers to achieving cost-effective biodiesel production is increasing the diversity of feedstocks from which biodiesel can be economically produced. The key to unlocking the potential of biodiesel is performing the research, development and demonstration of new technologies that will allow the co-production of biodiesel fuel and value-added bioproducts that lower overall costs. I was proud to add specific provisions to this underlying legislation that authorize an Advanced Biofuels Technology program, designed to accelerate the development of these processes. Again, while one of the potential

tools the U.S. can use to achieve the goal, additional biodiesel production is not explicitly assumed by the Cantwell amendment.

While advances in diesel engine technology are another potential tool for accelerating oil savings, they are not specifically assumed nor mandated by the Cantwell amendment.

Because the amendment lays out a vision rather than mandating specific measures, increased hybrid use is not specifically assumed. However, some have estimated that growth in the hybrid vehicle market can achieve oil savings of up to 2 million barrels a day by 2015, 10 years before the Cantwell amendment's ultimate goal. Taken together, biofuels production and growth in the market for hybrid vehicles could provide more than two-thirds of the energy security goal established by the Cantwell amendment.

There is no question that hydrogen provides another potential pathway to achieving substantial oil savings in the United States. However, because the technology remains at a relatively early stage in its development, no specific estimates exist for the economic and energy efficiencies this technology may provide. It is not specifically assumed by the Cantwell amendment.

Certainly, tax incentives can help spur the development of markets for advanced technologies, and help expand the choices available to American consumers. But these are not specified or assumed within the Cantwell amendment.

The amendment neither assumes nor proposes regulatory changes to the CAFE system. I view the debate regarding the efficacy of the existing CAFE program as beyond the scope of this amendment, which lays out a national vision for reducing American dependence on foreign oil imports. Certainly any changes to the CAFE system's regulatory regime would require additional legislative action, action that is not assumed in the Cantwell amendment.

Certainly other nations have begun the transition to more wide-spread use of diesel technology, and initiatives or programs in this regard may ultimately be consistent with the Cantwell amendment. But they are neither specifically assumed nor required.

The Cantwell amendment establishes a national goal. As such, it directs the President to design and implement measures designed to help achieve the goal, and assumes that, if the President deems his existing authorities insufficient, he will propose to Congress legislation or recommendations that would help achieve the amendment's energy security target. At that time, it would be up to Congress to consider the merits of the President's proposals, via the typical legislative process.

The amendment assumes that the President has at his disposal adequate authority to develop and implement measures that will help achieve the goal of reducing imports on foreign oil. However, the amendment is technology-neutral and establishes a 20-year vision. As such, it is difficult to predict with any specificity what direction new technologies may take, and whether issues may arise that require additional legislation or Congressional action. For example, if biofuels begin to displace a significantly larger portion of petroleum- based fuels in the United States, certain infrastructure-related barriers may arise that require additional authority or Congressional action. Similarly, there are certain to be issues associated with infrastructure, interoperability and international technology standards associated with the development of hydrogen fuel cells. Because the Cantwell amendment is a call to accelerate the development of alternatives to petroleum-based fuel, yet does not purport to choose technology winners and losers, it is premature to speculate on whether additional authorities or Congressional action may be required. However, it does assume that proposals to expand the range of tools available to the President to achieve the Cantwell amendment's goal would be considered through the normal channels of Congressional debate and approval.

The goal of this amendment is to reduce our foreign oil imports and exposure to the uncertainties of world oil markets. Because of the geologic realities of the way in which oil reserves are distributed across the globe, continued increased demand for oil will result in a growing dependence on imports. While the U.S. is situated on just 3 percent of the world's reserves, the Middle East is home to two-thirds, with a full quarter located in just one country, Saudi Arabia. In order to curb our growing reliance on imports, it is thus necessary to reduce demand for petroleum itself, across all sectors of the economy.

There is nothing in this amendment that precludes the President from requesting additional legal authority to achieve the target for 2015. Certainly, any legislative proposal or recommendations from the President would be considered by Congress, through the typical legislative process. Rather, the provision in (c)(2)(B) is intended to make clear that this amendment, on its face, does not grant the President any broad, new additional authorities not previously contemplated.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his fine amendment. I would like to take a minute to state that I am a cosponsor of the Bingaman amendment and very much believe in the renewable portfolio standard for our electricity grid. I guess if you looked at the Northwest, particularly Washington State, you would say we are already using 80 percent renewable energy because 80 percent of our electricity grid is provided by our hydro system. So we, in the Northwest, are very big believers in renewable power.

But we also believe in the other technology that is in the underlying amendment and in the underlying bill that will help us support renewable technologies. We have a lot of wind farms. We have had a lot of discussion out here on the floor this morning about wind energy. We, in Washington State, are already employing wind energy in a variety of locations in our State and getting great response. In some areas, it is some of the best job growth we have had in rural communities. Farmers love it because, aside from providing an agricultural product, they get a second source of revenue from their land by having agriculture and wind technology on their farms. It works very well for our farmers, and the combination of hydro and wind technology works very well for Washington state and the Northwest.

But we also have solar power. We are about to have one of the first demonstrations of wave power. We, in the Northwest, are using all sorts of renewable technology to meet these goals. Certainly, I want to endorse this particular amendment as a great step forward, saying we can do more with renewable technology.

I would like to turn to the Cantwell amendment, on which we are going to have a vote I believe at 2:15, and summarize, for my colleagues who might have missed yesterday's discussion, a few points I think are important as we talk about our reliance on imported oil and the fact we want to diversify.

In the New York Times, there was an article about OPEC and their increases in quotas for various OPEC countries. It is interesting, and every day Americans want to know what is going to happen with oil futures and gas prices. You look to find out what OPEC is doing. This article, I think, brings up the very point we were trying to make yesterday; that is, that China's demand for oil continues to grow. In fact, this article says that global oil consumption climbed 2.4 or 2.5 million barrels a day in 2004, the fastest growth rate since 1978. That is world demand for energy increasing. Basically, that was a result of China's increasing energy consumption. We know what the trends are, and we know what the challenges are that are facing us.

I found it interesting, too, that the New York Times article talked about how OPEC was actually concerned that alternative fuels might affect their future price of product. They are almost telling us, yes, they are a little concerned about competition from alternative fuels.

I welcome that. I think it is about time that America make an investment in alternative fuels and about time we give consumers a choice when it comes to the demand and supply of oil in the future and not continue to be held hostage by foreign governments.

I would like to review for my colleagues what exactly the Cantwell amendment does because it is so important that we understand what the underlying bill does and what our challenges are as a country going forward.

In 1973, we were importing only 28 percent of our demand--our U.S. demand--for oil. We were importing 28 percent of what we used as a country.

Today, 2004, we are at 58 percent, a huge jump, a huge dependency by the United States on a foreign source to provide us an oil supply.

When I look at the countries involved and I look at the instability in the Middle East, I don't want to be 58 percent reliant on foreign sources of oil. I want American ingenuity to be a driver in what we can provide to the American people in driving down the cost of energy.

If we do nothing, in 2025, the United States will be importing 68 percent; nearly 70 percent of our oil supply will come from abroad. Who in their right mind thinks that 70-percent dependence on foreign oil is wise economically, to our national security, or internationally as we have to deal with international competition? Why would

we want to be almost 70-percent reliant on foreign entities for something that is the backbone of our economy--energy?

I am offering a simple amendment. My amendment simply says by 2025, instead of being reliant on foreign sources for 68 percent of our supply, we bring that down to 56 percent. That is not much of a change. We are at 58 percent today, and we want to go down to 56 percent. That is a modest goal.

It is hard to achieve because our amendment assumes the growth and demand that will happen as our Nation grows. That is why we have to assume in 2025 we will be at 68 percent, and we want to see a serious reduction. That is the way my amendment is crafted.

The underlying bill says we are currently at 58 percent and let's reduce our consumption of foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day. One million barrels a day by 2015 still has us importing 60 percent of our supply from foreign sources. In 2015, instead of consuming 58 percent of our oil supply from foreign sources, we would be at 60 percent. The underlying goal in the bill does nothing to get us off our overreliance on foreign oil. It is the status quo and a bump in an increase. It is too timid in responding to what has been a gouging of the American consumer on gas prices.

This debate we have just had for the last couple of hours is interesting because a lot of my colleagues have said they refuse to support a mandate. They do not want to have a mandate in this bill. I am not proposing a mandate. It is interesting: Some Members do not support mandates. They do not even support goals. The American people deserve, on something as important as our national security and economic livelihood, to have this Senate, in transportation and energy policy, set a goal to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. Are my colleagues just giving lip service to this idea of a goal of getting off overdependence on foreign oil? Or are we willing to set a goal and do something about it?

I have pointed out that the goals we have are doable. My amendment does not say specifically how or what the mandate is. We have simply said, that from various studies, we know we can get the savings my amendment calls for in a goal. Here are a variety of sources: Fuel efficiency for tires and motor oil. The encouragement of a biofuels industry. A big chunk of this comes from alternative fuels. That is why OPEC, in today's paper, says they are very concerned about this because they know it is competition. They realize it is competition. Why don't we realize it is competition and ensure we get about making an alternative product?

Other countries certainly have this idea. One is Brazil and based on their overdependence on foreign oil they came to the same conclusions. They did not want to be in the same boat we are in today. In 1975, they were importing 80 percent of their fuel supply from foreign sources. They made a decision that was too much for them, both economically--I don't know if there are security issues--but economically they thought that was not wise so they started a process of taking steps. In 1990, they almost cut that in half. By 2003, they were down to importing only 11 percent of their fuel supply. Next year, they might achieve the great milestone of not only becoming self-sufficient but actually becoming an exporter of fuel to other countries.

They have done this because they made an investment in ethanol. They made decisions about their transportation sector so they could run on biofuel products. They have changed the economic picture of their country.

Is there something Brazil possesses that the United States cannot achieve? Are they smarter than we are? Do they have greater political will than we do? Do they have more consumers holding their politicians accountable than we do? What Brazil showed is they have a resolve because of their own national interests to get off the foreign addiction to oil. I applaud them for that.

They are only one-eighth the size of our economy, but they are proven to be smart enough to figure out how to make sugar-based ethanol in a cost-productive way, so efficient they can send it to the United States cheaper than we can produce it to the degree that some of my colleagues want to put a tax on it so that it is on a more level playing field with what sugar-based ethanol in the United States costs. To me, the Brazilians have come up with something.

I ask my colleagues, if you do not want mandates and you do not want goals and you do not want to get off our overdependence on foreign oil by setting a milestone or coming up with a goal or statement, what is it that you do want to do? The underlying bill increases our dependence by 2015 on foreign oil to 60 percent. We are at 58 percent today. It increases it to 60 percent. So we have accomplished nothing in the goal in the underlying bill.

I would like to set, primarily for international reasons, a goal to get off our dependence on foreign oil because these are our suppliers. These are the countries where the majority of U.S. oil supply comes from: Saudi Arabia sits on the largest percentage of oil reserves in the world today. I wish geography and geology had been kinder to the United States and that we sat on more than 3 percent of oil reserves. But we don't. We do not have that product. We have a very small percentage of the world reserve for oil. That is a fact of life. These are the countries and this is the State ownership of companies that are part of OPEC and have the oil supply of the future.

I didn't expect I would be in the Senate agreeing with George Shultz and James Woolsey and a bunch of neoconservatives who were espousing ideas about our national security, but I actually do agree with them that reducing our dependence on foreign oil should be a national priority and a national goal. That is why we have crafted this amendment this way.

We simply want to say to our colleagues and to the President of the United States that we believe increasing our consumption of foreign products as a way to support our economy is not a wise decision, given what growth and demand and oil prices are going to be. Yesterday, the market closed at $56.20 for oil. Economists at various Wall Street firms are saying we could easily see an oil spike of $100 a barrel. They say that oil futures have a fear premium on them; that is, there has been lots of discussion about how the price of oil futures is basically impacting the price of oil on a day-to-day basis. That is right, the speculative market about energy futures in oil basically causes the price at the pump today to increase. I find that unfortunate because the speculative price of oil futures takes into consideration those nine countries I mentioned, the fact that you could have a terrorist attack, the fact that you could have unrest in a region and that somehow supply would be diminished, thus affecting the price of oil futures.

Economists and people on Wall Street--Goldman Sachs and others-- basically say there is a fear premium on the price of oil futures; that is, we are paying more for oil because we are paying for the uncertainty and the instability in the political and geographic region where oil exists. That is what I am supposed to tell Washington State residents as to why they pay some of the highest gas prices in the country? That is why they should pay almost $2.30 a gallon for gasoline? That is why I should tell people they have lost their pensions in the airline industry because the airline industry has not passed on the high fuel costs? That is what I am supposed to tell the farmers who cannot keep their farms running because of high fuel costs, or somebody who has lost their job in a transportation-sensitive industry. I am supposed to tell them that I am going to continue to put an energy goal in legislation that makes us more dependent on foreign oil than we are today?

No. We want to reverse the trend. That is what the Cantwell amendment does. It is not a mandate. It is a goal. It says that instead of being more dependent on foreign oil in 2015, as the underlying bill directs us, let's become less dependent. Let's go from 58 percent, where we are today, down to 56.5 percent. It is a goal we can achieve. It is a goal I am willing to set as a legislator for our country because I believe in the ingenuity of Americans to achieve this goal.

There is nothing the country of Brazil can do that the United States cannot do. I guarantee you that if we set our resolve to do it as a nation, we will achieve this goal as well. The reason why we, as a government entity,

need to set this goal is because the private sector is going to diversify at its own darn pace; that is, the oil companies will decide what their investment in new technology and alternative fuels is at their own pace, their own wishes, their own response to their corporate shareholders, not at the interest of individual consumers who are getting strangled by the high cost of gasoline.

It is our job to set this goal and that is why we are on the Senate floor today. We are here to say we agree with the American farmers that they can produce a biofuel product in the future that can be competitive, that we agree with neoconservatives that the security risk of being 70 percent dependent on foreign oil is too great a security risk for our Nation, that we agree with technology and research experts that American ingenuity can get us to this 56.5-percent goal.

I ask my colleagues, what is wrong with setting this goal? Let's not continue to give lip service to a goal of getting off our foreign dependence and then do nothing about it in a legislative proposal. Let's show the American people we are concerned about the economic hardship they are facing and that we believe in American ingenuity. We believe in our farmers. We believe in our technology leaders. We believe that we, as a country, can achieve this great goal. If the last generation of Americans were smart enough to put a man on the Moon in a decade, this generation of Americans ought to be smart enough to reach this goal. I ask my colleagues to have the courage to set it in a piece of legislation as a mark for us to achieve.

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

Mr. President, I am not objecting, but I am just asking for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I think moving to 2:30 is fine, given the markup.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, yes.

Yes, we will send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I know there are many colleagues who want to talk on this issue. I do not know how many members on the other side of the aisle want to speak. I would think we can dispose of this within a couple of hours. That would be my guess.

That is correct. I think we will start the debate on the Cantwell amendment, and if other Members want to address that or other issues, we are happy for them to come down and address those issues as the afternoon progresses.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Energy Committee for his participation and help in clarifying this next segment of debate on the Energy bill. While I think we have several issues left to discuss, I think it is very important to realize what a milestone we have achieved. After a couple of sessions of the Senate trying to get energy legislation, we are now on the precipice of having an energy bill that has great bipartisan support.

I compliment the chairman of the Energy Committee for his hard work and diligence in getting an energy bill that has such great bipartisan support. As a member of the Energy Committee and as a relatively new Member of the Senate, I can tell you how honored I was that Senator Domenici visited me in my office to talk about the issues impacting the Northwest--because we have been hard hit by an energy crisis in the last several years--and his willingness to work with my office on those Northwest issues, particularly related to the hydro system.

I can say with certainty that just about every member of the Senate Energy Committee participated in the markup of this legislation by getting ideas and concepts into the Energy bill. While each of us have different perspectives because we represent different regions of the country, people should realize that getting an energy bill is a very important step forward in our Nation.

I contrast that to the House version. The House version reminds me of where we were in the Senate version 2 years ago, except for the House version just kept going in the wrong direction. It basically has what I call ``gratuitous special interest deals'' relating to groundwater pollutants. This includes letting MTBE manufacturers off the hook from their liability, something I know the Presiding Officer has concerns about. The House bill also has rollbacks of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. I think these are bad precedents to set.

I am trying to bring attention to the fact that the product we are starting with in the Senate is good legislation. The next week and a half will probably make this legislation even better, as Members who are not on the committee bring up issues, some of which, Members who are on the committee left to be discussed by all the Members on the Senate floor.

Something of particular importance to the Northwest is the electricity title in this legislation. Establishing the electricity title was a very meaningful step toward responding to the scandalous Enron crisis and the unethical practices of market manipulation. We are really getting tough on energy traders and executives who perpetrate the kinds of abuses that we saw in the western energy market. We are sending a message to those industries and businesses that the consumer will not provide the deep pocket for Enron kinds of bankruptcies.

I am grateful to the chairman and the ranking member from New Mexico for their hard work on this legislation. There was a great irony taking place the moment the Senate was about to make a decision on changing the filibuster rules. Members of both sides of the aisle and all their staffs were hard at work marking up a very comprehensive energy bill in a very bipartisan fashion. If people were there, they would have realized it was the Senate at its best doing its best work.

There are still outstanding issues that we decided we were going to bring to the Senate floor. Some of those issues were related to a variety of concerns that we thought were best addressed on the Senate floor. One of the issues that I think is important to bring up is my amendment on energy security. It is an amendment that will set a national goal for getting off our overdependence on foreign sources of oil. I am pleased to be able to offer that amendment with Senators Durbin, Salazar, and Kerry because it is important that energy independence be

part of our strategy for a national energy policy.

Many Americans are feeling this overdependence at the gas pump today. They know we are overdependent on foreign oil. They want to see more competition in gas prices. Americans may not realize that now the United States imports about 58 percent of our oil supply. That is about 11 million barrels a day. This number is expected to grow to about 62 percent by 2015. The underlying bill tried to address this by saying we should cut our dependence on oil by a million barrels a day, but what that underlying bill does is leave us worse off by 2015 than we are today. It would leave us more dependent on foreign oil than we currently are. The mathematics of the underlying bill need to be improved.

My amendment would direct the President to develop and implement a long-term strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by reducing 7.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2025. So, instead of allowing our foreign oil imports to grow from the 58 percent that it is today to 68 percent in 2025, my amendment would reverse this alarming trend.

We can see where we are today and where we need to get to reduce this dependence.

Under my amendment, this would be a 40-percent reduction by the year 2025. It is very important that this goal be included as part of our energy legislation.

It should be no surprise because many of the Members have talked about energy independence as part of the energy legislation. If my colleagues believe in the underlying fundamentals of this legislation, then they must believe that we can be successful in getting off our overdependence on foreign oil.

What this legislation is missing is an adequate goal to actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It is no surprise that consumers and experts alike agree on this. In fact, there was a recent poll which showed that 92 percent of Americans are very worried about our dependence on foreign oil, and 93 percent of Americans want our Government to develop an energy strategy that will get us off our overdependence on foreign oil. In fact, the President has joined in the call, saying that in order to make sure our economy grows, we need to encourage small business sector growth and vitality. We need to address a major problem facing our country, and that is our Nation's growing dependence on foreign sources of energy.

The President has joined in this debate in saying that getting off our foreign dependence is important.

We have had many others speak out, such as the leadership on both sides of the aisle. In the House, Speaker Hastert said: Our Nation is dependent on a fickle foreign oil market that is being stretched to the limit by foreign demands.

National security experts, such as CIA Director James Woolsey, former Secretary of State George Schultz, and others in the Energy Future Coalition, have said that the possibility exists for future oil embargoes and supply disruption that make us more dependent on the Middle East.

In fact, those gentlemen, in their report, said: For the foreseeable future, as long as vehicle transportation is dominated by oil, the greater Middle East and especially Saudi Arabia will remain in the driver's seat.

We have a chart that shows who owns the oil supply and who are the top global oil companies in the world. If one thinks about these companies on the chart, looking at the names, Aramco and various companies, and they look at the countries that basically own these companies, people will see that they are 100-percent owned by those entities. We can see what countries they are. We can see where the supply is.

If Americans look at this chart, then they know that we cannot leave our economic future and our national security for future oil supply in the hands of these governments and these countries. What we need to do is to get off of our overdependence on foreign oil and diversify, and that is specifically what my amendment calls for.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Energy Future Coalition that calls for major new initiatives to curtail U.S. oil consumption be printed in the Record.

Specifically, this coalition believes that domestic biofuel, something that we just debated as part of this energy strategy, can be used to produce a very significant amount of our future energy, and they are calling it an extraordinary opportunity for American leadership for job creation and economic growth.

I think this group of individuals, who are part of a coalition that is interested in our country's national security, are pointing out that this very chart, showing the ownership by foreign entities, is of great concern to our future. I think this letter does adequately call on us to do our job in making sure we are getting off of our foreign dependence.

I believe this underlying legislation gives us the tools to do so. That is especially true if you think about the framework that is in the bill and the debate we just had on biofuels, the 8 billion gallon biofuels goal by 2012. What is great about the biofuels amendment that was adopted and revised from the committee markup is that it includes both ethanol and biodiesel, and specifically ethanol research and development of what are called cellulosic ethanols--biomass-based ethanol materials.

We know we have Midwestern States that are already producing ethanol and giving us a source of supply. But if you take those five Midwestern States and try to transport that product to the Northwest, as we do today--we are selling biofuels and ethanol in a variety of places in Washington State today, but you are adding a 30-cent to 50-cent transportation cost. What the amendment we just adopted does is make sure that various parts of the country can also be in the biofuels business; that we can start producing products in other parts of the country, closer to the source and consumers that are going to use them. So it is a very positive step forward.

The bill also includes clean coal technology, that I know my colleague who is on the floor, the Senator from Tennessee, has worked on so diligently. It includes hydrogen fuel cells, and it includes next generation nuclear power, things I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have worked hard to perfect. It includes new research and development, to play a vital role in the commercialization of new technology. It promotes in, a bipartisan way, conservation initiatives. It is exciting to catch a sense of the new technology that will be in this bill to give us more efficiency in our homes and businesses. We will get a lot of savings from these programs and tools.

There are many tools in the underlying bill to achieve the goals we set out for ourselves. We believe this underlying bill has the right technology answers; that is, it has all the various means by which we can get off our foreign oil dependence, but it is simply lacking a goal. That is what my amendment will provide. This legislation should reflect the resolve of the American people, who say that getting off our overdependence on foreign oil is a national priority, and we are going to stick to it.

I know various Members are going to come down here and offer amendments

on other issues, issues related to global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. We are going to have proposals regarding a renewable portfolio standard, which would basically mean that our electricity grid would use more renewable energy to provide supply. I think Senator Feinstein is still going to come down and offer her amendment to close the SUV loophole, to try to make SUVs more fuel efficient.

We are going to have a lot of discussion to help improve the bill. But without setting a national goal, without saying our country has to get off our dependence on foreign oil, we will have missed an opportunity. This underlying legislation sets a goal that will actually make us, in 2015, more dependent on foreign oil than we are today. I think we need to set a goal as a legislative body, that we want to reverse that trend. In 2025 we want to actually be importing less foreign oil, and that is exactly what my amendment does.

Why is this so important? First, we all know it is in the economic interest of the United States to diversify off foreign oil. We know our dependence has cost us, since 1970, something like $3.6 trillion. In 2003, imports cost us $10 billion every single month, and our oil imports count for about 34 percent of our existing trade deficit. Think about that, 34 percent of our trade deficit, just because of the cost of oil. In fact, Alan Greenspan has said that the high cost of fuel has basically caused 8 out of the 10 postwar U.S. recessions; they were related to high energy prices and spikes in oil.

We know there is a strong relationship between energy costs to our overall economy. That is what we are trying to change. But a number of factors remain, and that is what is of great concern. Who actually controls those energy costs? We know the OPEC cartel, as well as international events and political events, have an impact. We know the growing demand in China and India for the same supply of oil has an impact. We know we need to do something about it.

If you talk to economists about what is going to happen to the price of oil in the future, the signs are pointing to oil prices could reach $100 a barrel in the next 20 years. If that is the case, that would have a devastating impact on our national economy. Yet that is exactly what we are hearing from them. That is exactly what people are saying. There is a world economic outlook report that was issued this spring by the International Monetary Fund, and that report basically said that oil could spike to $100 a barrel between now and 2030.

The Wall Street firm of Goldman Sachs also predicted that the price of oil could reach $105 in the next few years, and energy markets could easily be in the early stages of a superspike period. I know the United States has been through these periods before, where we have seen extreme spikes in energy costs. It has had a devastating impact on our economy. That is something we are trying to avoid by setting a national goal to diversify away from foreign oil.

We have many economic reasons for this amendment. But as I stated earlier, we also have security reasons. Let me expound on that just a little bit because I think it is important to understand the demand for oil and, basically, who holds the reserves. The oil reserves of every area in the world are in decline except for the Middle East. That means if we continue to be dependent on foreign oil, we are going to be more dependent on OPEC and its member countries. Given that those reserves, let's just say, are constantly under some scrutiny because of the challenges in that region of the world, some analysts, when looking at the oil futures market, basically describe what they call a fear premium. That is, the price of oil futures actually increases because people are concerned that international incidents may happen, terrorist threats and other things, that will damage that oil supply. So the cost of oil futures actually goes up, just on the fear of what might happen.

That is troubling because as we all know, we cannot predict what is going to happen on an international basis. We do our best to protect that oil supply, but Saudi Arabia alone has about a quarter of the world's oil reserves and more than 60 percent of that country's total oil inputs are processed at a single facility. So if you think about it, it is the home to almost all of the world's spare production capacity. Again, we are putting all our eggs in one basket. I am simply saying lets set a national goal to get off that dependence on foreign oil because of this security reason, as well as the economic reason and who owns this supply and how important it is.

I would like to talk for a second about the picture as it relates to other people interested in that oil supply. I mentioned China and India and the projections of the price of oil reaching $100 a barrel. Analysts agree that China, because of its growth and huge demand, is likely to shift the whole center of gravity for energy markets. That is, China has already moved past Japan in its global energy consumption. It is the second largest oil consumer and the third largest oil importer. In the next decade, China is going to continue to grow to about half of today's U.S. combined car and truck total, so they are going to be looking for lots of energy supply. It is expected that their imports are going to double by 2010 and quadruple, to 8 billion barrels of oil a day, by 2025. Imports will be 60 percent of China's total oil consumption.

While we are looking at the picture, already knowing we are overdependent on foreign oil and that the challenges to security are there and that the American economy is already suffering, we also need to recognize there are other nations who are going to be bidding for that same resource.

We need to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. How are we going to do that? First, we have to have the resolve. There are many times in American history this country has shown American resolve. We have put a man on the Moon. We have ushered in the nuclear age. We stood up in the OPEC crisis and got fuel efficiency standards for cars. We ought to have the resolve now. We need to bet on the ingenuity of American brain power to get us off our overdependence on foreign oil. If we are smart enough to put a man on the Moon, we ought to be smart enough to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. When John F. Kennedy made the declaration of wanting to put a man on the Moon in a 10-year period of time, I don't think he had the answer to every single element of how to do that. He left the details up to both the public and private sector in getting new technology developed so we could move forward.

In this case we have an underlying bill that actually can achieve this goal of reversing the trend by 2025 and reducing 40 percent the consumption of the United States of foreign oil. How do we do that? Many people have talked about how we get there. I will show one chart with examples of the oil savings technology in this legislation.

The biofuels amendment we talked about: Many organizations, including some of those security initiative organizations such as Energy Future Coalition and some environmental organizations such as Natural Resources Defense Council, have said biofuels can play a significant role. They could help produce 3.9 billion barrels of alternative fuel a day.

I hope my Midwest colleagues and my colleagues from other parts of the country who are interested in biodiesel and ethanol are excited by that opportunity. It means an economic opportunity for all the regions of our country that can produce those fuels. It also has a higher national purpose, to help us get off our over-dependence on foreign oil.

We can also improve efficiencies in various sectors such as aviation, residential applications, and various modes of transportation. I am very proud the Northwest has figured this out.

At the Paris Air Show we are seeing a lot of news about future planes. One plane you will not see there today but is on the drawing boards and is getting rave reviews from people making purchase orders is the next generation 787. What is great about that is its whole design is based on a more fuel-efficient plane. Boeing estimates it can save between 20 and 30 percent on fuel costs. They figured out the marketplace is going to be very sensitive to the high expense of transportation fuel and have developed a plane to answer the call from the marketplace. What has the marketplace said? The marketplace is responding with over 200 orders for a plane that is not even finished yet.

That is a great example of how we can get efficiencies in aviation and other sectors.

This chart explains how we can make a big step forward in energy savings, which are aspects of this legislation. They are very important aspects to look at.

A few of my colleagues who are anxious about this legislation want to know if it is a back door to higher fuel efficiency standards; that somehow this bill mandates CAFE. It does not mandate a higher fuel efficiency standard, although this Member would certainly support a piece of legislation in the Senate that suggested that. This amendment realizes there are hybrid cars in the marketplace that are likely to come onboard. There are estimates that you can increase the efficiency of our economy using hybrids and save up to 2 million barrels a day by 2015. That's just from the growth in the hybrid auto market. That is just American consumers buying hybrid cars and making that investment. It does not have to be CAFE, although I personally think we are losing a huge opportunity in the American marketplace by not being more aggressive about cars that can run on alternative fuels. I say that, mentioning the Boeing experience in aviation.

The aerospace industry in the Northwest is responding to the demand of more fuel-efficient transportation. I wish the auto manufacturers would be more aggressive. Actually, as oil has hit $50 a barrel they have gotten more aggressive. They have gone over to Japan and said, okay, we want a technology deal with the Japanese auto manufacturers; we want to get more of these cars in the United States market. Maybe that will work.

However, this amendment does not assume we are going to have a new CAFE standard. It simply says to the United States, if you are serious about this problem, you will set a national goal to get off our overdependence on foreign oil by 2025 and start reducing the trend. Instead of continually importing more, we should be importing less.

This chart shows the trend we are trying to reverse. Today we are basically importing 13 million barrels a day; if we do nothing, by 2025, we will be importing 19 million barrels. This is the trend we are trying to reverse. This is the direction we did not want to go in. We want to make a change.

Some of my colleagues ask, how can you set this goal? If you are not specific about how you get there, how are we going to achieve it? There is a lot I am sure that President Kennedy thought about when he wanted to put a man on the Moon, and maybe his original projections were not accurate. There is a lot of research and development we are going to do on a variety of these technologies.

One country that has taken this challenge and embraced it is Brazil. It is a country which looked at this same dilemma the United States has, from the economic perspective. They said, we cannot afford to be dependent on the high cost of imported oil. In fact, in the 1970s, Brazil had about 80 percent of its supply from imports. That was a big challenge.

As it exists today, Brazil has, because of its biofuels initiative, changed that trend. In fact, Brazil has gone from 1975 being 80 percent dependent on foreign oil to 1990 being only 45 percent dependent on foreign oil, and in 2006, Brazil actually plans on being an energy self-sufficient country and maybe even being a net exporter of fuel. That is very interesting. As it stands today, they are only importing about 11 percent of their supply.

How do you go from 1975 at 80 percent to 11 percent in 2003? The country took the initiative and said they were going to produce a competitive product to fossil fuel. That competitive product happened to be sugar-based ethanol. They got good at producing sugar-based ethanol. They got so good at producing sugar-based ethanol they actually can produce it and ship it here cheaper than we can produce it today.

I don't like losing the competitive edge to somebody else on the production of an alternative fuel source. I want the United States to be a leader in the production of alternative fuel sources. It holds a lot of promise for the United States.

One might say, well, Brazil is only one-eighth the size of the United States economy and we have much more demand than Brazil. That is true, but Brazil has learned about the efficient production of ethanol. Are we saying somehow the United States does not have the raw material supply for ethanol, whether it is sugar-based ethanol or biomass-based ethanol?

We actually are trying to put the American farmer in the fuel business. If there is anything we ought to be sure we have its agriculture. We know we only sit on 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world, so we know we are not going to get it from there. We are talking about importing liquified natural gas, so we know we are challenged there. But we sure know that the American farmer can produce a lot of product as it relates to ethanol, whether it is sugar based or biomass based, and we can produce a lot as it relates to biodiesel products as well.

That is exactly what this legislation does. It is very specific about the research and development that needs to take place to get us into the alternative fuels business. I am so certain of the well-crafted nature of that section of the bill that I am willing to say that I think we really can achieve our goal of decreasing our energy dependence by 2025. So it is a very positive step for us to look at what we have seen around the globe as far as other countries trying to get toward energy independence or becoming less dependent on foreign oil.

Now, I have another chart that shows examples of what we are trying to reach. This chart basically demonstrates how we can reduce, by 7 million barrels a day, U.S. consumption. It does not have to be the exact mix as shown on the chart of how we achieve that. This is just one of the proposals. You have market growth in hybrid cars; industrial improvements, efficiency improvements in aviation; efficiency gains in trucks and heavy-duty equipment. One of our National Laboratories in the State of Washington, the Pacific Northwest Labs, is doing great research on lightweight trucks, lightweight materials, transportation efficiency, for the trucking industry in our country. Other areas to reduce consumption: how to make the movement of goods and services more efficient, saving transportation costs; the replacement of tires, you can get more fuel efficiency just by having better balance of your tires to get better gas mileage; and there are transportation choices; and biofuels. Again, biofuels is a big opportunity for us.

So I hope all my colleagues are listening who are very supportive of the biofuels section of this legislation--which I hope there are many because I think it is a great opportunity. If you are supportive of that biofuels section of the bill, you ought to be very supportive of setting a goal because you really ought to believe the national goal is achievable. You ought to believe that the economic interest of our country in getting that new production of biofuels is not only an economic and security matter, it is also just plain good job creation for our country. You are putting the American farmer back in business with a product that now will see huge demand.

Now, I do not know if we have it here on the floor, but I took great note that the Economist magazine wrote a piece on biofuels a few weeks ago. In fact, it was a front-page cover story article that week about biofuels. What was interesting about it is that it discussed the fact that we are at this point where biofuels make so much sense because of the price of oil.

Now, several years ago, when we were talking about oil at $20 a barrel and people were talking about biofuels, maybe it did not make much sense, the economics did not make much sense. But we have hit, as Andy Grove would say, an inflection point, and that inflection point is that now we are seeing prices over $50 a barrel for imported oil.

So the article basically says that it is no longer the ``blue sky'' stuff that people talk about, but it is an idea whose time has come. It is a very substantive opportunity for anybody who can produce biofuels because at anywhere around $50 a barrel, instead of $25 a barrel, biofuels can be competitive.

Now, in Washington State, we are selling biodiesel and alternative fuels. A few weeks ago, we had the opening of one of our first biofuels stations. It was

actually at the same location as a previous traditional petroleum-based station. So they changed over from serving customers gasoline to now serving biodiesel.

Right now, the product is something that is shipped from the Midwest, refined at a production facility in Seattle, and then sent over to what was this particular station, Laurelhurst Oil. They are producing a biofuel in Seattle, even though the oil is still imported from another state. That biofuel, I think at the time, was about 30 cents more than what you could go around the corner and get to fill your car up with gasoline--30 cents more. And you ask: Well, how are you expecting to be competitive if it is 30 cents more? It was 30 cents more because we had the transportation cost of bringing that agricultural product to the Northwest, having it processed, and then sold. The production facility that is actually producing this biodiesel in Seattle believes it can reduce the cost by 30 cents--they could be selling the biodiesel at the same cost we are buying gasoline per gallon in Seattle--by simply producing the product in the State of Washington.

So that is what this bill allows us to do. I think the Economist was right, that the private sector is starting to respond to this and starting to come up with solutions. So then you say: Well, if the private markets are responding, why do we have to set a national goal? Well, let me address that because as a former businessperson, I understand that businesses are responsive to their customers and they are responsive to their shareholders. I do not blame a national oil company for setting its own agenda on when it wants to get into new energy technologies. That is their prerogative.

You see lots of commercials on TV all the time about how existing fossil fuel companies are going to generate biofuels, how they are going to diversify. They would make you think they are doing that in a rapid fashion. I am not so sure it is rapid enough for the consumers of Washington State, who are paying a very high price for gasoline, have paid a very high price for electricity recently, and are reeling from a hard-hit economy because of high energy costs.

We would like to see a much more aggressive effort. But those companies are not going to set a national goal and they are not going to diversify until it is in their financial interest. So the question is whether this body is going to set a national goal, which I think this underlying bill can achieve, and whether we, as a country, are going to diversify off of that overdependence on foreign oil. It is not their job; it is our job. And we should get about showing the American people that we have the will to do it and that we are betting on American ingenuity to achieve it. I have to believe that putting a man on the Moon is a lot harder than discovering how to be as efficient as the Brazilians are in the development of ethanol. I have to believe that was a tougher challenge.

So I think about the things we have achieved in our country's history. I think about the fact that, in response to the threat of what other countries might be doing with the nuclear bomb in World War II, FDR ushered in the nuclear age in 2 years. He shifted our spending in the development of energy in 2 years from about $8,000 to 86 million dollars and ushered in the nuclear age. Why? Because he saw a threat, and he wanted to set a national goal. We have had these instances where our country has decided it was in our economic interest and our security interest to move ahead. That is what we need to do today.

So I am glad to offer this amendment that simply says that we should take the underlying legislation and change its goal. The underlying bill already has a goal. It says that our goal should be to get off of foreign oil by 2015 by reducing it a million barrels a day.

What we need to do is reduce our oil supply in a much more aggressive fashion. We need to reduce that 40 percent by 2025. That is what my amendment calls for. I am happy to hear from my other colleagues on this issue. I hope that my colleagues will take this issue as an amendment to improve the underlying bill.

The underlying bill has the tools and the framework we need. What we need to do is have the resolve as a country to set a national goal. The private sector is not going to do that. We are not going to have consumers make market choices that don't exist. They want more market choices. What we have to do is set the wheels in motion. The good news is, once the Government sets a goal, it is amazing how many people respond to that.

Our country has set lots of goals. We set goals for more homeland security. I have seen more security technology companies come through my office in the last 2 years than imaginable. Why? Because we said we want more homeland security. So we have every imaginable aspect of homeland security being addressed by thousands of companies across America.

If we want to be serious about getting off our overdependence on foreign oil, we will pass this amendment, and we will be on the track for setting a goal that both the private sector and public sector will respond to. I think with that we will be able to say to Americans that we are on the right track, that we are not going to let consumers continue to pay high transportation costs, and that we have a plan for the future. We are not going to continue to be so singularly dependent on the fossil fuel industry. We are not going to continue to have transportation-sensitive industries caught in a stranglehold by high energy costs. We are going to say to them instead that our national security interests, our economic interests, our environmental interests are being met by a new national goal that all of us will participate in making a reality.

I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

The Senator is correct. In the underlying bill, we have language that says we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day by 2015. The problem with that goal is, when you are currently importing 58 percent of your oil supply from foreign sources and you calculate in the growth of demand--obviously, our economy continues to grow--there is demand for more oil. Even with that amendment, in 10 years, in 2015, we will be importing 60 to 62 percent of what our Nation consumes in oil supply from foreign sources. So the underlying amendment does nothing to stop this trend. In fact, we will continue to be more dependent on foreign oil.

I know the White House has sent some communication to Senators saying they oppose even that milestone in the bill which does attempt to try to reduce oil consumption. But the provision in the bill doesn't take into effect the fact that the economy grows. I guess it is saying: We don't want to have any goal to actually try to decrease the amount of foreign oil coming into this country.

I want to have a goal for decreasing the amount of foreign oil coming into this country. I want to reverse the trend. I want to go from what we are expected to have, 68 percent in 2025,

and say, let's switch that down towards 50. Let's get to 56 percent. Let's start doing as the Brazilians did, which is an amazing story, if you think about it. Here is a nation that basically went from 80 percent, now, today to 11 percent, and is on the verge of becoming an exporter. When you think about the economic opportunities our country has in actually being an exporter of new energy efficiency technology, it is a great opportunity.

The Senator is right that the administration opposes any goal setting in this bill. Why would somebody oppose goal setting? All the tools are here in this legislation. I am not saying which technology is going to win. Basically, our amendment is technology agnostic. It doesn't say: You are going to have CAFE; you are going to have nuclear power.

A lot of my colleagues are betting on nuclear power. There is new language in here for new nuclear technology. A lot of people think it will provide us hydrogen sources, and we will have hydrogen fuel cells. We will move to having a more fuel-efficient economy that way.

I am not being prescriptive because 2025 is a long time from now. But I know if we look at specifics, we can get there through these various means, but we won't get there without a goal.

The Senator from Illinois brings up an important question, which is with China's interest in global oil supply and the demand, is it going to drive up the price. I don't think an oil company really cares whether the price of oil is driven up or not. What do they care?

Somebody is going to pay them, whether it is $50, $55, $60, $80, or $100. With an increase in demand, that is good news for them. Oil supply costs just go up. They reap the benefits; they reap the profit. But what it is not good for is the American economy.

So the Senator is absolutely right, China's entrance into the demand for foreign oil should be seen by this country as an economic and security risk. China's consumption and growth rate is staggering. China is going to be consuming I think I said 8 million barrels of imports. They have already overtaken Japan, and they are fast on our heels to catch up to our consumption, and they will get to a point where they are the 800-pound gorilla in the dynamics of world oil supply.

Even our underlying bill says you can try to ramp up different sources of U.S. production. But we all know with the United States being situated on 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, it is not a likely scenario for us in the United States to be able to drill our way to energy security. So the Senator is right, China is a unique concern in this. We ought to take that, along with the other national security factors, and the fact that the oil supply is located primarily in these Middle Eastern countries--if we can put the chart back up there. If you look at where the supply is already, the countries and state ownership, that is already worrisome enough. Now, when you throw into the equation that China is going to be demanding more supply from these entities, it is going to lead to a higher price. I am not sure any of these countries are worried about the U.S. consumer and what they have to pay for transportation costs. I don't think they are responsive to the needs of U.S. consumers. The United States might be responsive to our own consumers if we were the owner of these companies, but we are not.

So this is about setting a national goal that recognizes the hardship the American economy is going to encounter, and that we are going to be under in the future if we continue to pay these prices. We might, in 10 years, be happy we were talking about $50 a barrel prices, if some of the expectations of Wall Street come to pass--the predictions that we could see superspikes and get to $100 a barrel. We are already feeling the pain now. Americans are losing jobs, pensions, like the pensions of transportation workers, where there are issues because of high fuel costs; and people are curtailing economic activity because of high transportation costs. We ought to take the Chinese part of the equation and realize this goal needs to be set and we need to make it a reality, just as we did to reach the goal of putting a man on the Moon.

My colleague from Tennessee is also on the floor. I want to give him an opportunity to add whatever comments he wants to add about this.

Amendment No. 784

Mr. President, I call up my amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I know there are many Members who want to speak. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Feinstein and Reid be added as cosponsors of the legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Kerry be recognized to speak.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his comments and for his diligence in following energy policy both on the committee and on the floor. I know he cares greatly about this issue and has spent many hours on the details in various sections of this legislation. I appreciate his interest and unique focus on clean coal technology. He has great interest and knowledge about clean coal technology, and has articulated his views about that numerous times.

I know my colleague from North Dakota is here so I want to give him an opportunity to talk, but I want to respond. The 7 million barrels reduction is an achievable goal. If you believe in the underlying technology the Senator from Tennessee just discussed, which is the various ways we can get to that goal, he and I are in agreement. Where we seem to be in a disagreement is whether we want to set this goal. I believe the American people deserve to have a goal set that is achievable.

The underlying bill that says in 2015 we will be more dependent on foreign oil than we are today doesn't seem the goal we should be putting forth. While the committee passed that out of committee, we knew we were going to come out here and discuss a variety of issues. Now that we have the perspective of the entire bill with a lot of different technology solutions, I would say it is time for the Senate to be more bold about this.

I commend to my colleagues this report, ``Securing America; Solving Our Oil Dependence Through Innovation.'' There are two different organizations, the NRDC and the IAGCS, that basically outline in their report how we can save close to 7 billion barrels of oil per day.

We have a submittal to the Record from the Committee on the Present Danger, on our oil security. It, too, talks about how we can achieve this goal and what some of the sources are.

I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

There are lots of third parties saying we can achieve this goal. I want to bet on the American ingenuity that is outlined in this bill, and other American ingenuity, that we can achieve what it takes to get there. So I am not afraid of setting this goal. I am glad third parties are validating that we can achieve it.

My colleague wants to say this is about putting a man on Mars or something of that nature. I can tell you, the American people are right here on planet Earth and paying $2.36 or close to it for gasoline in Seattle, and that is too high. What Americans want is relief. What they know they will not get is relief from language that says we are going to be more dependent in 2015 than we are today. They want us to set a goal to get off that overdependence because, frankly, there is not true competition on oil prices. That is to say when Americans have no alternative fuel at the pump and they have to pay that price, there is no true competition. So Americans want to get off that overdependence. That is what the amendment says and that is what we want to achieve by 2025, 20 years from now.

With all the myriad technology in the legislation and all the technology we can create between now and then, let's reverse the trend and be less dependent on foreign oil in 2025 than we are today. That seems to be a national goal on which everyone in this body ought to be able to agree. We should not be afraid of the underlying bill and the great work that has been done by my colleagues. I cannot say who the ultimate winners and losers will be. My colleague has spoken about new nuclear technology, he has talked about natural gas--there will be many ways. But I know if we set this goal and tell the American people they are not going to be strangled by high energy costs moving forward maybe up to $100 a barrel, then we will actually achieve that goal. But our underlying language right now does not get us there. So I hope we will embrace the bipartisan effort that the Senate committee had and work together on this to set a goal we will be proud of, in the sense of reversing the trend so we are not in 2015 being more dependent on foreign oil, but in 2025 being less dependent on foreign oil.

I yield the floor to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comments. I wish I could take credit for the bold idea in the sense that I am happy to be the sponsor of this amendment, but there are many people in America who have been talking about this as an idea.

I submit for the record another organization that has supported a blueprint for U.S. energy security, the Set America Free Organization, which is a collective organization of individuals, and they actually submit information that would be much bolder than a proposal to set a goal in number of barrels that could be saved by 2025.

There are a lot of people out there who have their sights set even more dramatically than what we are talking about.

Clearly, my colleague outlined that we are talking about something that is technologically agnostic. We are not declaring what technology is going to win. There are lots of great solutions that are provided in this bill. But I would like to remind my colleagues that today at 2 p.m., the price of oil per barrel was up to $56.50. So that is what we are dealing with, $56.50.

I know my colleagues in the Chamber were involved in getting the original language of 1 million reduction by 2025. I think that language first emerged when the Senate was considering previous Energy bills 2 years ago. At the time we originally started thinking about this goal of how to get off our foreign oil dependence or to reduce it, we were talking about oil prices that were much lower, maybe as low as $23 a barrel. Now we are looking at $56 a barrel. It is imperative that we be more aggressive by setting this goal and by working together to achieve it.

The underlying bill is a testament to bipartisan work in saying that there are a variety of ways to reach the goal. Some may ask: Senator Cantwell, why do you want to set this goal? You might actually find the United States pursuing more domestic oil supply as a result of this goal.

I can't say what is going to happen. I just know I want to get off the foreign dependence that we are at today because our economy cannot continue to take that risk. With the concentration of oil supply in the Middle East, we are one mishap away from having our economy face a $100-a-barrel oil cost in the future. We cannot afford $56 a barrel. Some people say: Well, economies adjust to the high cost. I guarantee, in the meantime, a lot of people are going to suffer. There is not a week that goes by that I am not on a plane flying back to the west coast, to my home State of Washington, and a transportation worker doesn't come up to talk to me about their pension, the fact that they are laid off, the fact that they are losing their job because transportation fuel costs in aviation have not been passed on to the consumer. Consequently, it is being taken out on pensions. So there isn't a week that goes by where I don't see somebody who hasn't suffered from the high cost already, at $56 a barrel.

We cannot continue this dependency or the race we are going to be in with China on competing for a limited supply.

I am confident enough in American ingenuity that I am not even going to be prescriptive about how we get there as it relates to whether it is nuclear, another supply of oil, biofuels, what is going to win the day. I showed a chart because I am a big advocate of biofuels. If you can buy biofuels in Seattle now in the $2.60 range, $2.70 range, I know that we can create more incentive, as we are in this bill, more research and development to get that cost down. So I know I can get it competitive to what I think gasoline prices are going to be. I want to do that. I am gung-ho about that.

I am gung-ho about what the Brazilians have done because they have turned their economy around by becoming almost net exporters of energy instead of net importers. That is an incredible story the United States should learn from.

As my colleague from North Dakota said, there are many different technologies in the bill, but other countries are starting to gain the advantage. If we think about it, we are not the experts on fuel efficiency that the Japanese are. We are not the experts on wind energy that some of the Scandinavian countries are. We are not the experts on the production of sugar-based ethanol that the Brazilians are. It bothers me that we are losing the technology edge to other countries.

I certainly am willing to take the risk of setting a goal of 2025 in reducing our foreign oil consumption by 40 percent and saying all the options are on the table. I believe that Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman did a good job of putting all those options on the table. I believe in the underlying bill. What I think we should reflect on is that the underlying bill includes language from a couple of years ago that may not be bold enough in the sense that if it doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil in 2015, we will be more dependent.

We should reflect on that and see if we can get to a point where we are endorsing the underlying solutions in this bill and setting a higher goal so that we can say to the American people, we are reversing this trend.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Set America Free be printed in the Record.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her comments and for her focus on the fact that the amendment is basically agnostic about where we get future supply. You can get it from more domestic production of oil or natural gas. I have been a big supporter of more natural gas production, particularly from Alaska, because I think it is so important to our country moving ahead.

I appreciate her chart showing what States are involved in energy production because we in Washington State are getting 70 percent of our electricity from a hydro system. She mentioned, yes, you can get energy from damming rivers. Well, that is exactly what we have done in the State of Washington and many parts of the Northwest. It has cost our environment, but yet we get 70 percent of our power from that.

We have one nuclear powerplant in our State. We have one coal plant in our State. We have a few natural gas-fired plants in our State. We have four major refineries that take crude oil and convert it to petroleum products, such as gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, and asphalt. So we in Washington State are involved in all those activities.

The fact is, we do not have significant oil and natural gas off the coast of Washington. I know that is something that is being discussed. But the Minerals Management Service Report that was conducted basically says there is not a lot of natural gas off the coast of Washington. So I am not in the same position as the Senator from Louisiana.

I think you have to take into consideration in this debate what some of my staff call the ``accidents of geology;'' that is, that Saudi Arabia happens to sit on 25 percent of the world's oil reserves, and we in the United States only sit on 3 percent. That is a fact of geology.

So the fact that Louisiana has oil and gas and Washington does not is another fact of geology. But I tell you that we do play our role in Washington State. We help keep the lights on in California. We were forced to do so by emergency order by the U.S. Government during a drought, at a cost to ratepayers in Washington State. So we do play our part in providing energy supplies around the region.

But this is an issue about regional diversity and about getting off our overdependence on foreign oil. I think the Senator correctly articulated what this amendment does; and that is, it basically sets a goal and says it is most important to get off the foreign dependence, to start reducing it. I appreciate that because she came up with the original language and I think is concerned that we do set goals. So I appreciate her comments.

I would like to add to the record, if I could--I know my colleagues from Colorado and Illinois are on the floor and want to speak. But we have had questions about whether we can get a supply of biofuels. I know a lot of my Midwestern colleagues believe in the biofuel section of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Executive Summary of the USDA and Department of Energy report entitled ``Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply.''

The reason I am asking to do that is because this report, which was done by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Tennessee research facility that is part of our national lab system, has said we currently have enough forestland and agriculture land in our country to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of our current transportation demand. We are already doing research at these labs. They are already calculating the numbers. They are already saying we have enough forestland and timberland in our country to produce one- third of our current demand for transportation fuels. So I think this report is very telling that we can and are on our way. It is a matter of us setting the goal.

I know my colleagues talked earlier a lot about CAFE standards. One of the charts that was presented was supposedly information from the Energy Information Administration about CAFE standards. The Energy Information Administration does not have any idea where those numbers came from, and they understand this amendment does not say anything about CAFE standards. It says basically we ought to set a national goal.

It is important to set the national goal to get off our overdependence of foreign oil because this is who owns the foreign oil. These are the state-owned facilities. These are the countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya. These are the places that have the majority of the world's oil reserves. So our policies for the future are going to be subject to factors involving these countries, so long as we are so dependent on foreign oil.

Now, it is in our economic and security interests to diversify. I think the underlying bill gives us lots of tools to do that, but it does not set a goal to reduce the amount we are dependent on foreign oil.

My amendment would say, let's reduce the amount so that in future years we actually have a reduction--not the 58 percent we are importing today, and not the 68 percent of foreign fuel we are going to import in 25 years, but actually reduce that down to 56 percent so that the trend line is going in the other direction. Let's become less dependent on foreign oil than we are today. That is the goal of my amendment.

I appreciate that my colleagues from Colorado and Illinois are also here to speak on that, so I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's crucial decision in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Forty years ago, Estelle Griswold and Dr. Lee Buxton were arrested and convicted for counseling married couples on birth control methods, and prescribing married couples contraceptives. They challenged their convictions, and the Supreme Court overturned them, ruling that the Connecticut law under which they were charged was unconstitutional. The Court found that the Government had no place in interfering in the intimately private marital bedroom. Justice William O. Douglas, in writing the Court's opinion, scoffed at the notion of police searching private bedrooms for evidence of contraceptive use. This landmark decision, cited in countless numbers of decisions since then on the constitutional right to privacy, guarantees the right of married couples to use birth control.

Yet the relevance of this decision goes far beyond contraceptive use. In rendering its decision, the Court recognized a ``zone of privacy'' arising from several constitutional guarantees. The Court acknowledged that while the right of privacy is not enumerated specifically in anyone place, it is inherent in several areas within the Bill of Rights and throughout the Constitution. This very American notion of privacy served as a cornerstone of precedent, paving the way for other decisions and further solidifying as established law the constitutional right to privacy. Roe v. Wade, guaranteeing a woman's right to choose, was a logical application of Griswold.

Today, Americans' privacy rights are threatened on many fronts. The Government is asserting greater and greater investigative powers. Some pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for legal contraceptives. The anniversary of Griswold gives us all an opportunity to reflect on the importance of preserving our privacy rights. The Court recognized that we are born with privacy rights as Americans, and we have a particular responsibility as Senators to protect these rights for our constituents.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an investment program in lifelong education for our service members and veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill is consistently cited as an important reason people join the military. The GI Bill continues to be one of the most important benefits of military service today. There is no reason why 100 percent of our active duty, selected reserve, and veteran servicemembers shouldn't be taking advantage of their earned education benefits.

That is why I'm introducing the ``GI Bill for Life Act of 2005,'' which would allow Montgomery GI Bill participants an unlimited time to use their earned benefits.

The MGIB is a program that provides up to 36 months of education benefits for educational opportunities ranging from college to apprenticeship and job

training, and even flight training. Upon enlistment, the GI Bill also requires service members to contribute $100 per month for their first 12 months of services.

Basically, the MGIB is divided into two programs. One program targets active duty and veteran members, paying over $1,000 per month to qualified students. That's more than $36,000 for school. The other is directed at the Selected Reserve. This program provides educational benefits of $288 per month, for a total of $10,368.

If recruits are overwhelmingly declaring that education opportunity under the GI Bill is the key incentive for them to join the military, then it makes sense that most--if not all--of our troops, who signed up for the program, would also be cashing in on their benefits. But reports show that the majority, 40-60 percent, do not actually use the benefits they earned.

Currently, MGIB participants have up to 10 years from their release date from the military to use their earned education benefits. Members of the Selected Reserve are able to use their MGIB benefits for 14 years. However, that means your earned education benefits expire if you don't I use them within the required timeframe, closing your window of opportunity to go to school or finish your college education. Plus you lose the $1,200 dedicated for your GI Bill during your first year of enlistment.

Originally, the intent of 1944 GI Bill of Rights was to help veterans successfully transition back into civilian life--as education is the key to employment opportunities. Looking back now, we know that the GI Bill opened the door to higher education, helping millions of service members and veterans who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance to pay for college. That is, servicemembers benefited from the GI Bill because they used the payments within the 10- and 14 year limitation.

But there are many others who did not use their earned education benefits within that timeframe. For example, after leaving the military, some servicemembers postponed going to school because they had to go straight to work in order to support their family. Others unfortunately, were either homeless or incarcerated for long periods of time due to disability associated with military service--but are now ready to move forward in their lives, and going back to school is their first step. In some cases, due to random life circumstances, some people just lost track of time. Additionally, because of misinformation and bureaucratic language, the GI Bill is known as a complicated program to navigate.

A constituent of mine, Ruben Ruelas--who is a Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) for the WorkSource in Wenatchee, Washington--wrote to me saying, ``It's been my experience that most people don't know what they want to do in life or are placed in situations where, due to changing economic times, they are displaced and need further education and training to compete for jobs. But most don't have access to training resources to do so.''

In terms of Vietnam Era veterans, Mr. Ruelas goes on to say, ``[m]any 50 year olds are unemployed, untrained and uneducated and could use their educational benefits to improve their skills to compete for better jobs. Many have come to realize, too late, that they need college or retraining and don't have the resources to do so.''

While times have changed remarkably, one thing remains constant: education is critical to employment opportunity. In the 21st Century global labor market, enhancing skills through education and job training is now more important than ever. The need for retraining is even more underscored for our military service members and veterans.

My legislation, the GI Bill for Life, would ensure that educational opportunities are lifelong, allowing service members and veterans the flexibility to seek education and job training opportunities when it is the right time for them to do so.

Higher education not only serves as an individual benefit, but positive externalities have transpired: the GI Bill was instrumental in building our country's middle class and continues to help close the college education gap.

Today, employers are requiring higher qualifications from the workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree. By 2010,40 percent of all job growth will require some form of postsecondary education. While a highly skilled workforce is one characteristic of the new economy, working for one employer throughout a lifetime is no longer routine, but rather an evanescent feature. According to findings by Brigham Young University, the average person changes jobs or careers eight times in his or her lifetime. To keep up with these trends, expanding access to education and training is a must do in the 21st Century global marketplace.

A 1999 report by the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance stated that the GI Bill of the future must include the following: provide veterans with access to post- secondary education that they use; assist the Armed forces in recruiting the high-quality high school graduates needed; enhance the Nation's competitiveness by further educating American veterans, a population that is already self-disciplined, goal-oriented, and steadfast and attract the kind of service members who will go on to occupy leadership positions in government and the private sector

Eliminating the GI Bill 10- and 14-year limitation for service members, veterans, and Selected Reserve moves one step toward improving the MGIB. The GI Bill for Life would allow MGIB members, including qualified Vietnam Era Veterans the flexibility to access their earned education benefits at any time.

As the nation's economy continues to recover and grow stronger, the GI Bill will continue to be the primary vehicle keeping our active duty service members and veterans of military service on track, helping to ensure our country's prosperity.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an investment program in lifelong education for our service members and veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill is consistently cited as an important reason people join the military. The GI Bill continues to be one of the most important benefits of military service today. There is no reason why 100 percent of our active duty, selected reserve, and veteran servicemembers shouldn't be taking advantage of their earned education benefits.

That is why I'm introducing the ``GI Bill for Life Act of 2005,'' which would allow Montgomery GI Bill participants an unlimited time to use their earned benefits.

The MGIB is a program that provides up to 36 months of education benefits for educational opportunities ranging from college to apprenticeship and job

training, and even flight training. Upon enlistment, the GI Bill also requires service members to contribute $100 per month for their first 12 months of services.

Basically, the MGIB is divided into two programs. One program targets active duty and veteran members, paying over $1,000 per month to qualified students. That's more than $36,000 for school. The other is directed at the Selected Reserve. This program provides educational benefits of $288 per month, for a total of $10,368.

If recruits are overwhelmingly declaring that education opportunity under the GI Bill is the key incentive for them to join the military, then it makes sense that most--if not all--of our troops, who signed up for the program, would also be cashing in on their benefits. But reports show that the majority, 40-60 percent, do not actually use the benefits they earned.

Currently, MGIB participants have up to 10 years from their release date from the military to use their earned education benefits. Members of the Selected Reserve are able to use their MGIB benefits for 14 years. However, that means your earned education benefits expire if you don't I use them within the required timeframe, closing your window of opportunity to go to school or finish your college education. Plus you lose the $1,200 dedicated for your GI Bill during your first year of enlistment.

Originally, the intent of 1944 GI Bill of Rights was to help veterans successfully transition back into civilian life--as education is the key to employment opportunities. Looking back now, we know that the GI Bill opened the door to higher education, helping millions of service members and veterans who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance to pay for college. That is, servicemembers benefited from the GI Bill because they used the payments within the 10- and 14 year limitation.

But there are many others who did not use their earned education benefits within that timeframe. For example, after leaving the military, some servicemembers postponed going to school because they had to go straight to work in order to support their family. Others unfortunately, were either homeless or incarcerated for long periods of time due to disability associated with military service--but are now ready to move forward in their lives, and going back to school is their first step. In some cases, due to random life circumstances, some people just lost track of time. Additionally, because of misinformation and bureaucratic language, the GI Bill is known as a complicated program to navigate.

A constituent of mine, Ruben Ruelas--who is a Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) for the WorkSource in Wenatchee, Washington--wrote to me saying, ``It's been my experience that most people don't know what they want to do in life or are placed in situations where, due to changing economic times, they are displaced and need further education and training to compete for jobs. But most don't have access to training resources to do so.''

In terms of Vietnam Era veterans, Mr. Ruelas goes on to say, ``[m]any 50 year olds are unemployed, untrained and uneducated and could use their educational benefits to improve their skills to compete for better jobs. Many have come to realize, too late, that they need college or retraining and don't have the resources to do so.''

While times have changed remarkably, one thing remains constant: education is critical to employment opportunity. In the 21st Century global labor market, enhancing skills through education and job training is now more important than ever. The need for retraining is even more underscored for our military service members and veterans.

My legislation, the GI Bill for Life, would ensure that educational opportunities are lifelong, allowing service members and veterans the flexibility to seek education and job training opportunities when it is the right time for them to do so.

Higher education not only serves as an individual benefit, but positive externalities have transpired: the GI Bill was instrumental in building our country's middle class and continues to help close the college education gap.

Today, employers are requiring higher qualifications from the workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree. By 2010,40 percent of all job growth will require some form of postsecondary education. While a highly skilled workforce is one characteristic of the new economy, working for one employer throughout a lifetime is no longer routine, but rather an evanescent feature. According to findings by Brigham Young University, the average person changes jobs or careers eight times in his or her lifetime. To keep up with these trends, expanding access to education and training is a must do in the 21st Century global marketplace.

A 1999 report by the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance stated that the GI Bill of the future must include the following: provide veterans with access to post- secondary education that they use; assist the Armed forces in recruiting the high-quality high school graduates needed; enhance the Nation's competitiveness by further educating American veterans, a population that is already self-disciplined, goal-oriented, and steadfast and attract the kind of service members who will go on to occupy leadership positions in government and the private sector

Eliminating the GI Bill 10- and 14-year limitation for service members, veterans, and Selected Reserve moves one step toward improving the MGIB. The GI Bill for Life would allow MGIB members, including qualified Vietnam Era Veterans the flexibility to access their earned education benefits at any time.

As the nation's economy continues to recover and grow stronger, the GI Bill will continue to be the primary vehicle keeping our active duty service members and veterans of military service on track, helping to ensure our country's prosperity.