Floor Statements

Mr. President, I discuss the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to briefly discuss the compromise before us on the so-called nuclear option.

I continue to oppose all three of the nominees that will proceed to up-or-down votes as the result of this compromise, and I will be voting against cloture on Priscilla Owen as a result. But I do acknowledge the importance of preserving the process of debating judicial nominees. I do not feel that the filibuster has been misused with regard to President Bush's nominees, as I'll explain shortly, but I am impressed at the efforts of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to avoid the all-or-nothing nuclear option vote that threatened to cause us to break down as an institution.

I also express my hope that the term ``extraordinary circumstances'' that is in this compromise is interpreted sensibly. When extreme nominees threaten the balance of our federal courts, I view those as extraordinary circumstances. I will continue to vote to block any nominee who is not suitable for the bench, and it will continue to be an unusual exception for me not to support a nominee. My standard has been extraordinary circumstances all along.

As a former member of the Judiciary Committee, I attended a hearing on Priscilla Owen that lasted a full day. During that hearing, Owen's record showed a particular disregard for precedent and the plain rule of law.

Anyone who walks into a courtroom as a plaintiff or a defendant in this country should do so having the full confidence that there is impartiality on the part of the judge on the bench. They should have total confidence that the rule of law will be followed, and believe the issues will be judged on their merits rather than viewed through the prism of an individual judge's personal values or beliefs.

There is reason to be concerned about the record of Priscilla Owen. Time after time, even her own Republican colleagues, on a predominantly Republican Texas Supreme Court bench, criticized her for failing to follow precedent or interpreting statutes in ways that ignore the clear intent of the law.

What some of Owen's colleagues on the bench have said about her opinions I think is important. In a case dealing with a developer seeking to evade Austin's clean water laws, her dissent was called ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.''

In another case, her statutory interpretation was called ``unworkable.'' In yet another case, the dissent she joined was called ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.''

There is another reason this nomination is so important. This is critical to all the nominees we are considering for appointment to the Federal bench, and especially important for you here this morning. That is, what is the judicial philosophy and commitment to upholding current law as it relates to a citizen's right to privacy. I asked Justice Owen at her hearing about her beliefs on the right to privacy. I asked her if she believed there was constitutional right to privacy and where she found that right in the Constitution.

She declined at the time to answer that question without the relevant case information and precedents before her. When Senator Feinstein followed up with a similar question, Owen against would not answer whether she believes a right to privacy does exist within the Constitution.

The question of whether a nominee believes that the right to privacy exists with regard to the ability to make decisions about one's own body is only the tip of the privacy iceberg. I believe that we are in an information age that poses new challenges in protecting the right to privacy. We are facing difficult issues including whether U.S. citizens have been treated as enemy combatants in a prison without access to counselor trial by jury, whether businesses have access to some of your most personal information, whether the Government has established a process for eavesdropping or tracking U.S. citizens without probable cause, and whether the Government has the ability to develop new software that might track the use of your own computer and places where you might go on the Internet without your consent or knowledge. There are a variety of issues that are before us on an individual's right to privacy and how that right to privacy is going to be interpreted. A clear understanding of a nominee's willingness to follow precedent on protecting privacy is a very important criterion for me, and it should be a concern for all Members.

Of course, some of my concern and skepticism about Justice Owen's views on privacy results from the opinions she wrote in a series of cases interpreting the Texas law on parental notification. In 2000 the State of Texas passed a law requiring parental notification. But they also included a bypass system for extreme cases.

Eleven out of 12 times Owen analyzed whether a minor should be entitled to bypass the notice requirement, she voted either to deny the bypass or to create greater obstacles to the bypass.

Owen wrote in dissent that she would require a minor to demonstrate that she had considered religious issues surrounding the decision and that she had received specific counseling from someone other than a physician, her friend, or her family. Requirements, I believe, that go far beyond what the statute requires.

In interpreting the ``best interest'' arm of the statute, Owen held that a minor should be required to demonstrate that the abortion itself--not avoiding notification--was in the individual's best interests. In this particular case, I think she went far beyond what the statue required.

Where does that put us? Women in this country rely on the right to choose. It is an issue on which we have had 30 years of settled law and case precedent. In the Fifth Circuit, there are three States that continue to have unconstitutional laws on the books, and legislatures that are hostile to that right to choose. The Federal courts are the sole protector of women's right to privacy in these states. I do not believe that the rights of the women of the Fifth Circuit can be trusted to Justice Priscilla Owen.

The Senate provides each of us with the procedural privilege to thoroughly discuss my concerns about this nominee--the filibuster. The filibuster has been used against me on issues I care deeply about, just as I have used this procedure when it was necessary to protect the people of my state. This body, in which I am so privileged to serve, is more important than any one of us, precisely because even one Senator can stand up for her state in the face of a powerful majority.

This agreement, whatever else I might think of it, preserves the rights in this body that make it unique and that give it the most credibility. Each of us has to respect the views of the rest. When 40 of us stand together, the other 60 must negotiate. That is healthy and that is what happened here. The rules of the Senate, and the existence of the Federal judiciary itself, pose proper checks on majority and Presidential power. That is the way it should stay.

Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words in honor of our country's many dedicated law enforcement officers, and to thank them for their ongoing efforts to keep our families and communities safe. As my colleagues know, May 15 is National Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week that follows marks National Police Week. Throughout this week, the United States honors the courage, devotion, and sacrifice of law enforcement officers from across the Nation, and recognizes their invaluable contributions to the well-being of our country.

First observed in 1962, National Police Week also provides us with an important opportunity to remember those we have lost in the line of duty. One hundred and fifty-three law enforcement officers lost their lives while serving in 2004, including three from my home State. Last month, their names were added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, offering a stark reminder of the sacrifice all law enforcement personnel stand prepared to make to protect the citizens they serve.

Sadly, Senior Boarder Patrol Agent Jeremy Wilson of Ferndale, Officer James G. Lewis of the Tacoma Police Department, and Sergeant Brad Crawford of the Clark County Sheriff's Department all lost their lives in the line of duty during 2004. The outpouring of community support that accompanied each loss underscores the immense appreciation and compassion felt by Americans for those ready to help in a time of need. I would like to join with my fellow Washingtonians and take a moment to pay tribute to Agent Wilson, Officer Lewis, and Sergeant Crawford for their generous spirit and tireless devotion to duty. By sharing a little bit about each of these officers with you, I hope to help honor their sacrifice.

Currently, there are over 10,000 Federal law enforcement officers deployed along our country's borders. The deserts, wilderness, and rivers that line many of our Nation's edges often present these agents with extreme and trying conditions that can sometimes lead to tragedy. On Sunday, September 19, 2004, Senior Border Patrol Agent Jeremy Wilson fell overboard during a patrol on the Rio Grande near Los Indios, TX. Soon after, the patrol boat capsized, sending the boat's captain and another officer, Agent Travis Attaway, into the turbulent, storm-fed river. A second border patrol boat was able to rescue the boat's captain, but Agents Wilson and Attaway were lost. Agent Wilson, a third generation Border Patrol Agent from Ferndale, WA, was 29 years old. His passing leaves a reminder of the dangers faced by officers who spend each day navigating extreme conditions on our Nation's frontiers.

Often, the randomness and chance surrounding a loss of life makes the event difficult to understand. Routine actions, preformed hundreds of times, can, without warning, end tragically. On Tuesday, April 27, 2004, Officer James G. Lewis, a 19-year veteran of Tacoma Police Department, lost his life when his motorcycle collided with a car that pulled in front of him as he rushed to help a fellow officer who had requested back-up. Officer Lewis was 45 years old. He was a member of Tacoma Pierce County Search & Rescue, and had served as a police officer in the Marine Corps. He is survived by his wife and son. He will be remembered for his willingness to help others and his readiness to put their needs before his own.

While our Nation's police officers spend each day working to limit violence, a call for help can sometimes lead to an outbreak of what law enforcement works so hard to prevent. On Friday, July 30, 2004, Sergeant Brad Crawford of the Clark County Sheriff's Department was killed when his patrol car was intentionally rammed by a truck fleeing the scene of a standoff. Sergeant Crawford was 49 years old. He had served as a law enforcement officer for over two decades and had been with the Clark County Sheriff's Department for 8 years. He is survived by his wife, five children, and three grandchildren.

The untimely and unnecessary loss of Agent Wilson, Officer Lewis, and Sergeant Crawford reminds us of the immense challenges that law enforcement officers face on a daily basis. They will each be remembered for their dedication and their desire to serve and help others. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families during this difficult time.

National Police week is a time to remember those we have lost and thank those who continue to serve. However, our gratitude extends far beyond this one week. Local, State, and Federal law enforcement stand ready at every hour, and their unending courage and sense of duty represents the very best of America. On behalf of the citizens of Washington State, I offer my thanks to the men and women who wake up every day, put on a uniform, and set out to make our country an even better place.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague in the resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens. I thank my colleague for working on the resolution to commemorate this historic event. Not only for Washington State and the Northwest, but

for our country, May 18 marks an incredible landmark in time for people in the Northwest and certainly marks a critical response by our Federal Government. It also allows us to reflect on the progress we have made as a nation to develop a greater understanding about the more than 160 active volcanoes in the United States.

For over 100 years, Mount St. Helens stood in silence, a relatively dormant peak and serene part of the Pacific Northwest. But on the morning of May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted releasing a plume of ash that filled the sky, circling the Earth in just 15 days. The destructive eruption eviscerated everything in its path and tore through miles of trees.

Today, 25 years later, the effect of the 1980 eruption remains evident, and the rumbling of Mount St. Helens over the past several months reminds many of us, particularly in Washington State, of those events on May 18, 1980. The level of activity of Mount St. Helens, combined with the unpredictability of it, makes it very special for Washingtonians. We embrace the mountain's beauty but remain in profound respect of its power and weary of a repeat eruption similar to 1980.

What is important to understand is that Mount St. Helens, located 90 miles south of Seattle and 65 miles north of Portland, OR, when it exploded, released such hot steam that it actually melted 70 percent of the snow and ice on top of the mountain. To give you a sense of that enormity, Mount St. Helens was, prior to this, the ninth highest peak in the State of Washington. It has now been reduced about 1,300 feet. The avalanche that was created by that explosion was close to two- thirds of a cubic mile of debris. The Geological Survey estimates that would be enough to cover Washington, DC, in more than 14 feet of ash and mud. That is basically what the Northwest dealt with when this explosion happened in 1980. We saw flows of rock and ice covering various parts of the north fork of the Toutle River, debris running down those pathways wherever it could go. The eruption destroyed 27 bridges that were part of our highway structure, 200 hundred homes, 185 miles of roadway, and 15 miles of railway.

What is unique about this is that Congress responded. We responded because of the devastation to the physical and environmental infrastructure but also because of the loss of life. My colleague and I are here to commemorate those 57 Washingtonians who died in the incident, and one particular individual, David Johnston, who was with the U.S. Geological Survey. What this anniversary marks is the great strides we've made as a Nation to response to science in this area.

David Johnston, by comparison, in 1980 had been studying Mount St. Helens for many months. In fact, on the morning of the explosion, he was 6 miles away on what is now called Johnston Ridge. Many of my colleagues may, if they turned on the TV in the last several months to see rumblings of Mount St. Helens, seen many observers, and many members of the media stationed on Johnston Ridge. When Mount St. Helens erupted on that day, David Johnston, who was our monitoring system at Mount St. Helens only had an opportunity to say: Vancouver, this is it. And the eruption took his life.

Where we are today is that we have volcanologists, geologists, seismologists in what is a robust system of emergency response. The U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Interior, the National Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency under the Department of Homeland Security, and the Cascade Volcanic Observatory in Vancouver, WA, all provide us with a much greater sense of what is going on with Mount St. Helens and what the emergency response should be in the event of a similar explosion.

My colleague mentioned that we have seen a lot of rumblings lately on Mount St. Helens, and certainly those eruptions have caused concern. But I think today's anniversary reminds us that as a nation we responded to this activity with a better warning system, and with a much better understanding of volcanic activity in the United States. With the 162 active volcanoes in the United States, we in the Northwest want to see good research on this. The fact that Mt. Rainier and other mountains are much closer to great population centers of Washington State is something for which we want to continue to have an investment in good science.

I join my colleague Senator Murray and thank her for commemorating the events of May 18, 1980, as a particular point in time for Washingtonians and for our country. But as I stated this commemoration is also significant because it speaks to the advancements in science that our country has achieved in better preparing to respond to this type of emergency. When I think about the science we have applied as it relates to volcano monitoring, I am confident that with similar activity and research as it relates to tsunami activity--something that also could greatly impact the Northwest--we can better prepare for an event of that nature as well. It gives me a great deal of hope that we will, through better mapping, through better geological information, better seismic information, provide Washingtonians with greater security and safety.

As most of my State will be seeing many pictures of the eruption in 1980, I thank my colleagues from past Congresses for their support in giving us a Cascade Volcanic Observatory in the State of Washington and for the work the men and women do in various Federal agencies that provide us better scientific information and a better warning systems for our country.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to comment on the surface transportation act we are going to hopefully pass today and a particular provision that I was happy to work on with my colleagues Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Lott, regarding giving consumers better protection and accurate information about gasoline consumption. Americans today are facing a painful reality at the gas pump, so the least we can do is to make sure the mileage stickers on their cars match up with the reality of the road. That will help them and their families make better budget plans and make better choices when buying automobiles.

It is simply that we need to have truth in labeling for stickers on automobiles. But today gas mileage stickers that appear on cars basically inflate the true vehicle fuel economy performance by anywhere from 10 to 30 percent.

That is because the Federal Government laboratory tests, on which this outdated procedures rely, are false assumptions. For example, they assume people drive 48 miles per hour on the freeway, and they never use air conditioning. Obviously, a variety of other things that represent technology improvements have not been considered in this test. When a family is on a tight budget--and right now there are many Americans on a tight budget--getting accurate information about vehicle fuel efficiency is important.

The provisions of this bill that are included in the surface transportation act would direct EPA to issue a proposed rulemaking no later than the end of this year and complete the process within 18 months. What it would do is encourage the Government to take into account real-life conditions such as speed limits, acceleration rates, braking, variations of weather and temperature, vehicle load, and a variety of other fuel-consuming features.

It is important that we pass this kind of legislation. I know the American Automobile Association supports this legislation, as do many other residents throughout the country who are consumers making gas- conscious choices when they buy automobiles. We need to give them accurate information.

I am glad the truth in labeling amendment we offered will be included as part of the package of the surface transportation act and hopefully pass today.

I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I am pleased to join the chair of the Subcommittee, Senator Snowe, in submitting a resolution regarding the policy of the United States at the upcoming 57th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). I wish to also thank my colleagues Mr. McCain, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Reed, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Levin, Mr. Biden, Ms. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Lieberman for co-sponsoring as well.

Recognizing that whales are highly migratory and therefore require international cooperation for their preservation, the IWC was formed in 1946 under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. In 1982, due to the severe impacts of whaling on the populations of large whale species, the IWC adopted an indefinite moratorium on all commercial whaling.

Despite the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling, significant whaling has continued. In particular, Japan and Iceland have been using a provision in the Convention--which allows countries to issue themselves permits for ``scientific whaling''--to kill whales in the name of science, and later sell the meat commercially. More than 8700 whales have been killed in lethal scientific whaling programs since the adoption of the commercial whaling moratorium, and press reports indicate that a new plan may be offered that would expand such whaling to fin and humpback whales. The IWC Scientific Committee has repeatedly stated that such lethal takes are not necessary for scientific research.

In this resolution we call on the U.S. delegation to remain firmly opposed to commercial whaling. We urge the U.S. to initiate or support efforts to oppose the unnecessary lethal taking of whales for scientific purposes and to seek to end the sale of meat and blubber from whales killed for scientific research in order to remove this perverse incentive.

This resolution comes at a time when discussions are underway in the IWC to establish a framework, or ``revised management scheme'' for any future commercial whaling, should it ever occur. The resolution calls for the U.S. delegation to the IWC to insist that any RMS negotiations remain separate from discussions on whether to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling, and that any such RMS include provisions on accountability, transparency, and compliance that are part of all effective international agreements. It further calls on the U.S. delegation to insist, as part of the RMS language, that lethal scientific whaling immediately cease upon the commencement of any commercial whaling. The resolution also firmly recognizes the rights of indigenous people to whale for subsistence purposes, and calls on the U.S. delegation to firmly reject any attempts to compromise such rights or to equate commercial whaling with such rights.

In order to ensure future abundance and health of whale populations, we call on the U.S. to support the work of the Conservation Committee, and to otherwise expand whale conservation efforts. The resolution calls for the U.S. delegation to support the permanent protection of whale populations through the establishment of whale sanctuaries in which commercial whaling is prohibited. Finally, the resolution directs the U.S. to make full use of all appropriate mechanisms to change the behavior of other nations which are undermining the protection of these magnificent creatures.

I would like to again thank chairwoman Snowe for collaborating with me on this important effort, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words in honor of the Asian and Pacific Islander communities of the United States. As my colleagues know, May marks Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month. Throughout this month, the United States celebrates the history, culture, and traditions of Asian and Pacific Islanders, and recognizes their unique contributions to the United States.

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

The Asian and Pacific Islander population has a rich history in this country, especially in the Pacific Northwest. In my home State, records show the arrival of Asian immigrants as early as the 1860s, while some scholars even speculate that Chinese explorers sailed down the Alaskan coast to what is now Washington State centuries before. Today, there are nearly 13 million Asians and Pacific Islanders living in the United States, representing 4.4 percent of the population. In Washington, they make up nearly 6 percent of the citizenry.

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

America is a land of immigrants and our history demonstrates that we are stronger because of our diversity, not in spite of it. However, we can only live up to the promise of our diversity if we recognize the mistakes of our past and give all groups a voice in public discourse. Asian Americans have a powerful history in the Pacific Northwest, and I believe we cannot ignore its darkest period. For this reason, I was pleased to work with Senator Patty Murray to secure Federal funding for a study of the Eagledale Ferry Dock site on Bainbridge Island, which served as a point of departure for members of the Japanese-American community on their way to internment camps during World War II. These funds are a critical

step toward commemorating the sacrifices and the strength of the Japanese-American community, and to recognizing an important chapter in the history of Bainbridge Island, my State, and our Nation.

I am proud to represent a State with a history of electing a diverse group of citizens to public office. In 1993, Filipina-American Velma Veloria became the first Asian-American woman to serve in the Washington State Legislature. Over the past decade, her work to fight human trafficking and promote peace and social justice has truly made my State a better place. Since then, Washington State has also seen the service of Gary Locke, Washington's first Asian-American Governor, and Paul Shin, the first Asian American to serve in the State senate. In fact, the rich history of Asians and Pacific Islanders holding elected office in Washington State dates back to 1962, when Wing Luke, a decorated World War II veteran and former Assistant Attorney General of the State of Washington, won a seat on Seattle's city council. Today, his legacy is commemorated in Seattle's Wing Luke Asian Museum, along with the stories of thousands of other Asian immigrants. I am personally honored to be involved in renovating the museum's East Kong Yick building, one of the first two buildings in Seattle owned by nonwhites. The museum is both a local and national treasure, respected as a Smithsonian affiliate and honored at the White House 10 years ago with the National Award for Museum Services.

As this year's Asian Pacific American Heritage month begins, I believe it is important to preserve the lessons of the past, while recognizing the immense benefit we all receive from living in a diverse country built on the contributions of immigrants from around the globe. Diversity, and the exposure to other customs and ideas that it involves, leads to opportunity and gives the United States much of its strength. In celebrating the rich history, culture, and traditions of Asian and Pacific Islanders this May, we recognize their important contributions to the strength and diversity of our country, and to the bright future that lies ahead.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Electric Reliability Act of 2005, which I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator Clinton and Senator Jeffords. This legislation would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--authority to devise a system of mandatory and enforceable standards for the reliable operation of our Nation's electricity grid.

Enactment of this bill is long overdue. The provisions of this bill have passed the United States Senate many times. They represent crucial steps forward in the effort to modernize our Nation's electricity grid and reform the rules by which it is operated. I believe this body can and must make necessary progress in upgrading our electricity grid.

As surely my colleagues recall, in August of 2003 much of the Northeast and Midwest suffered a massive power outage, affecting 50 million consumers from New York to Michigan. This blackout, the biggest in our Nation's history, has underscored the need for mandatory and enforceable reliability standards--as envisioned in the Electric Reliability Act of 2005. To date, the system has operated under a set of voluntary guidelines, with no concrete penalties for those that break the rules and jeopardize the reliable energy service that is the foundation of our Nation's economy.

Following the August 2003 blackout in the NE, a joint report issued by the United States and Canada the following April recommended a number of policy changes on both sides of our shared border. The first recommendation in that report was to make reliability standards mandatory and enforceable with penalties for non-compliance. The Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005 does exactly that.

While the August 2003 blackout was certainly a potent reminder, the call for reliability legislation dates back at least another 5 years. In 1997, both a Task Force established by the Clinton administration's Department of Energy and a blue ribbon panel formed by the North American Electric Reliability Council--NERC--determined that reliability rules for our Nation's electric system had to be made mandatory and enforceable.

These conclusions resulted, in part, from an August 1996 blackout in the Western Interconnection, where the short-circuit of two overloaded transmission lines near Portland, OR, caused a sweeping outage that knocked out power for up to 16 hours in 10 States, including my home State of Washington. The blackout affected 7.5 million consumers from Idaho to California, resulting in the automatic shut-down of 15 large thermal nuclear generating plants in California and the Southwest-- compromising the West's energy supply for several days, even after power had mostly been restored to end-users.

As outlined in Economic Impacts of Infrastructure Failures, a 1997 report submitted to the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, the blackout was estimated to exact between $1 billion and $4 billion in direct and indirect costs to utilities, industry and consumers. The report also detailed the risks the outage posed to public health and safety, including an exponential increase in traffic accidents, hospitals forced to rely on emergency back-up power generation, and the grounding of more than 2,000 airline passengers.

While it took time to develop consensus, the Senate recognized the human and economic stakes associated with the reliable operation of the electricity grid. Stand-alone legislation very similar to what I have introduced today passed this body in June 2000, when this Chamber was under Republican control. And even as the majority has twice changed hands since then, the United States Senate has twice passed the very provisions included in the Electric Reliability Act of 2005 as part of comprehensive energy legislation.

Today I am introducing the Electric Reliability Act of 2005 as I believe it is time for this body to take concrete steps towards ensuring the continued reliable operation of our electric grid. This legislation would mark a substantial achievement in the effort to upgrade the reliability of our Nation's grid and insulate our economy from the disastrous impacts of electricity outages.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Electric Reliability Act of 2005, which I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator Clinton and Senator Jeffords. This legislation would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--authority to devise a system of mandatory and enforceable standards for the reliable operation of our Nation's electricity grid.

Enactment of this bill is long overdue. The provisions of this bill have passed the United States Senate many times. They represent crucial steps forward in the effort to modernize our Nation's electricity grid and reform the rules by which it is operated. I believe this body can and must make necessary progress in upgrading our electricity grid.

As surely my colleagues recall, in August of 2003 much of the Northeast and Midwest suffered a massive power outage, affecting 50 million consumers from New York to Michigan. This blackout, the biggest in our Nation's history, has underscored the need for mandatory and enforceable reliability standards--as envisioned in the Electric Reliability Act of 2005. To date, the system has operated under a set of voluntary guidelines, with no concrete penalties for those that break the rules and jeopardize the reliable energy service that is the foundation of our Nation's economy.

Following the August 2003 blackout in the NE, a joint report issued by the United States and Canada the following April recommended a number of policy changes on both sides of our shared border. The first recommendation in that report was to make reliability standards mandatory and enforceable with penalties for non-compliance. The Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005 does exactly that.

While the August 2003 blackout was certainly a potent reminder, the call for reliability legislation dates back at least another 5 years. In 1997, both a Task Force established by the Clinton administration's Department of Energy and a blue ribbon panel formed by the North American Electric Reliability Council--NERC--determined that reliability rules for our Nation's electric system had to be made mandatory and enforceable.

These conclusions resulted, in part, from an August 1996 blackout in the Western Interconnection, where the short-circuit of two overloaded transmission lines near Portland, OR, caused a sweeping outage that knocked out power for up to 16 hours in 10 States, including my home State of Washington. The blackout affected 7.5 million consumers from Idaho to California, resulting in the automatic shut-down of 15 large thermal nuclear generating plants in California and the Southwest-- compromising the West's energy supply for several days, even after power had mostly been restored to end-users.

As outlined in Economic Impacts of Infrastructure Failures, a 1997 report submitted to the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, the blackout was estimated to exact between $1 billion and $4 billion in direct and indirect costs to utilities, industry and consumers. The report also detailed the risks the outage posed to public health and safety, including an exponential increase in traffic accidents, hospitals forced to rely on emergency back-up power generation, and the grounding of more than 2,000 airline passengers.

While it took time to develop consensus, the Senate recognized the human and economic stakes associated with the reliable operation of the electricity grid. Stand-alone legislation very similar to what I have introduced today passed this body in June 2000, when this Chamber was under Republican control. And even as the majority has twice changed hands since then, the United States Senate has twice passed the very provisions included in the Electric Reliability Act of 2005 as part of comprehensive energy legislation.

Today I am introducing the Electric Reliability Act of 2005 as I believe it is time for this body to take concrete steps towards ensuring the continued reliable operation of our electric grid. This legislation would mark a substantial achievement in the effort to upgrade the reliability of our Nation's grid and insulate our economy from the disastrous impacts of electricity outages.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, the emergency supplemental appropriations conference report before us today is a critically important piece of legislation. This bill will ensure that our troops in Iraq, who put their lives on the line for us every day, are properly equipped and protected. It provides vital funds to support the emergence of a free Afghanistan, and it provides much-needed funding for tsunami relief.

I am supporting this conference report even though I strongly oppose the REAL ID provisions that are also included. The REAL ID Act is a complete overhaul of our immigration laws that would, amongst other things, impose complicated new driver's license requirements on States, make it harder for refugees at risk of persecution to be granted asylum, and suspend all environmental laws along the U.S. border.

This language will result in the most significant changes to our immigration policy in 10 years. While we have long recognized the need for comprehensive immigration reform, this debate has no business taking place as part of an emergency spending bill. Legislation of this importance deserves to be the subject of focused study and serious debate. Passing REAL ID without careful consideration is reckless, irresponsible, and a disservice to the American people.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter of grave importance to our economy and national security. The issue is energy policy and what it will take to put us on a path toward energy diversification and away from our overdependence on foreign oil.

Tonight we will hear from the President about how he plans to lower gas prices. In the State of Washington we have seen a rise of almost 50 cents a gallon in 1 year. I look forward to hearing what the President has to say about lowering those gas prices. I do not believe his plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will help make any difference in the prices in the near term.

I will address what is a broader energy debate this Senate is about to start. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. It keeps our cars running, our companies competitive, our citizens safe, and our Nation secure. It is the future source of job growth for America.

The House has passed an energy bill and the Senate will start shortly on its own plan. We need to tell America where we are going on this important journey to set about an energy policy in America that we can be proud of.

We are at a critical juncture. The pain being felt at the gas pump by Americans is a wake-up call to all of us that we need to take action. Now is the moment our Nation must make a conscious choice to tackle the challenges ahead in a straightforward and serious manner, and get to the heart of what is a very enormous problem.

What our country needs is an energy policy that bets on American ingenuity and investment rather than gambling our future on the good will of the Saudi Royal Family or the OPEC cartel. There is no doubt in my mind, and history shows this, when this Nation devotes its tremendous resources and innovative spirit to confronting a threat such as that posed by the high cost of energy and overdependence on foreign supply, we can succeed. History has shown in our country, we have made significant shifts in investment when our national goals were set in the right direction.

Americans are familiar with the ambitious goals set by President John F. Kennedy when he challenged this Nation to put a man on the moon within a decade. But it was not just rhetoric. President Kennedy tripled the budget for the space program between 1961 and 1962. He also asked us to double the number of scientists and engineers working on the project over a 5-year period. President Kennedy recognized the importance of this investment and America won an international race to put a man on the moon.

A less recounted story, but nonetheless significant to our country's history, was the shift in gears this country made when we embarked on the Manhattan Project. In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized $85 million for what would become the Manhattan Project. Within 2 years, our entire national budget for atomic research grew from $6,000 to $85 million. In the midst of World War II, the President had decided it was in our Nation's

strategic interest to make this investment. Three years later, the Manhattan Project ushered in the nuclear age and the United States won the race to become a superpower. The Manhattan Project changed the course of history. That $2 billion investment also has influenced domestic and international policy ever since that time.

A little less dramatic but no less important for consumers and businesses across America, there is another example of how this country shifted gears and focused on investment and energy policy. In the 1970s we woke up to the fact that our country was defending, in support of, the only democracy in the Middle East. As a result, we ended up with an OPEC oil embargo. Our economy was stalled and we waited in long gas lines to fill up our tanks.

What did Congress do during that crisis? Among many things, we passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 which made our cars more efficient. In 1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act which led to diversifying our source of electricity generation by lowering the barriers for new generation of cleaner and more efficient power.

In the mid-1970s, oil was used to generate electricity for homes and fuel for our economy; we got 20 percent of our Nation's electricity from oil. But because of our actions during the 1970s, being aggressive, today oil is only 2 percent of our electricity portfolio. During this time, consumers also began making choices to switch from home heating oil to other sources. In fact, since that time period, the number of homes that use home heating oil has dropped about 35 percent.

So we have seen in our history that we can take aggressive steps and shift our investments toward a new strategy. Certainly that is what we need to do now to get this country moving toward a more independent energy future. In other words, we showed the leadership that is lacking today in making the right investments.

We are in an international race because of the economics of oil and where our oil dependence is leading us. First, even if every last deposit geologically present in the United States was tapped, the fact remains that the United States sits on 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Today, the United States imports about 60 percent of its oil supply. Dependence on oil means dependence on foreign sources of oil. It is a geological and economic fact of life: We cannot drill our way to energy independence.

Where are the prices today? According to DOE's Energy Information Administration, gas prices for this week have reached a national average of $2.24. As I said, in my home State, that is a little higher at $2.48. What we understand is that gas prices for the future are also going to be high if we stay this course. The gas prices that have hovered about $50 a barrel for this year are up from about $30 a barrel in 2004. I don't know if any of my colleagues remember the 1990s, when oil was $15 a barrel.

The real concern is, what is the economic outlook for oil prices in the future? The World Economic Outlook Report issued earlier this month by the International Monetary Fund will have all my colleagues' attention. That is because it is projected that oil could spike to $100 a barrel between now and 2030.

These prices are driven in part by a tripling of demand by China. As the Chinese and Indian economies grow, so will their dependence on petroleum. And rising incomes in China mean they will own more automobiles. According to that same report of the International Monetary Fund, China will be consuming 19 million barrels of oil a day in 2030, more than triple the amount it used last year, and almost as much as the United States uses today.

We know demand for oil is going to increase, and we know the cost is going to go up. In fact, a Wall Street firm, Goldman Sachs, predicted the price of oil could reach $105 a barrel in the next few years and that the energy markets could be in the early stages of a superspike period, where we could see prices fluctuate as we did in the 1970s, when at times they quadrupled. So this is a very important issue, something this body needs to address, not with a Band-Aid, but with a long-term solution that will put our country on the right track.

If we do not think this is impacting other parts of our economy, particularly on the trade front, the Department of Commerce recently, in its monthly report, said the U.S. trade deficit in February worsened to $61 billion, in part because of the surging oil prices. So it is impacting our economy all around. But so long as this Nation fails to make progress on an energy policy that acknowledges the reality of geology and the international marketplace, we are jeopardizing our economic future.

I cannot say I agree with the President's energy proposal and policy goals. But I know he has said he knows this becomes a ``foreign tax on the American dream.'' I do agree with that. The American people want to see a different policy. They have not given the President high marks on his energy proposal.

In an AP poll taken last week, more than 50 percent of people said if gas prices stay as high as they are in the next several months, it will cause financial hardship for them. It is already causing financial hardship in many parts of my State. In fact, 57 percent of people in the same report said they have already cut back on other expenses to cope with rising gas prices.

Here is a telling figure: Sixty-two percent of the people say they disapprove of the handling of our nation's energy policy. I believe they mean they want to see a different approach. Mr. President, 87 percent of the American people say that conservation, fuel efficiency, and alternative energy sources are the best way to reduce America's overdependence on foreign oil. We need to listen to them and get an energy policy that reflects that reality.

The American people know it is time to get serious. They know some of the ideas we talk about here are the alternatives to our overdependence on oil--investment in wind power, wave power, solar power, and the ingenuity of American brainpower. Those ideas need to have their day in the Senate, where we can talk about the issues of alternative energy and modernizing our transmission grid.

Well, I can tell you this, we are going to have some challenging times agreeing to some of the proposals that are being passed over by the House of Representatives as they discuss an energy policy. Here in the Senate, I am encouraged that the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, is actually reaching out to Members and trying to discuss the formation of what will be a productive energy debate and discussion, and a bipartisan effort that will merge these ideas about where we need to go for the future into a bill. So I appreciate the chairman's efforts, as he has discussed with Members of both the majority party and minority party some of the ideas the Senate should be considering in an energy strategy.

But if we are going to make dramatic progress, we need to make sure the President of the United States, who is endorsing the House proposal in his administrative statement of support, understands that proposal is a nonstarter. The American people want to see a real plan of diversification, insofar as they think the House proposal has fallen short. In fact, even the President's own economic advisers in the Energy Information Administration have concluded the House Republican energy plan will have a ``negligible'' impact on energy supply, energy prices, production, and imports--``negligible.'' In fact, the same economists concluded their proposal will have a 0.1 percent--that is less than 1 percent--impact on oil consumption by 2025.

So, in other words, the House energy plan, which the President is endorsing, is like treading water. It is like standing still, while our economy cannot stay afloat on these high gasoline prices, and while our businesses and consumers continue to be gouged.

Details of what is wrong with the President's plan ought to be front and center as we discuss our Senate proposal so as not to make the same mistakes and so we can move forward.

Because clearly, there is something wrong when we look at the priorities of the legislation the President has endorsed. For example, this proposal continues to provide subsidies in the wrong direction. Last year, this body rejected a proposal that would have given 60 percent of the tax incentives to the traditional industries; that is,

oil and gas. You would think turning that proposal down might have sent a message. But, instead, our colleagues in the other body now give 90 percent of the tax incentives to the same traditional industries and devote only 6 percent to new technologies.

If the President is serious about getting a proposal before August, he should start by making clear his opposition to a waiver, letting oil companies off the hook for groundwater-polluting chemicals such as MTBE. I do not believe granting immunity to polluters for groundwater cleanup costs and saying States should pay for it has a single thing to do with getting an energy policy that will put America on the right track.

Americans want to know our energy policy is about the common interest, not special interest. They want to know we are going to get a bill that helps us diversify off of our foreign sources of energy.

There are many other things the President's plan endorses that I think are dead wrong, and we are going to have plenty of time to talk about them. But I would mention them briefly.

For example, this current proposal fails to recognize how our country has been gouged by high energy costs from companies such as Enron. It does nothing to hold the line against what I call the latter-day Ken Lays, and would leave future Enrons with the opportunity to steal from consumers. What we need is a tough bill in relation to market manipulation that includes making sure utilities that continue to be sued by Enron are not the deep pockets for their extreme market manipulation and trading practices that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has failed to adequately deal with.

The President's endorsed energy plan also rolls back dozens of environmental rules and laws that were put in place to protect Americans' public health and safety. Many of them were put in by previous Republican administrations. So we are going to have lots of time to discuss this energy plan and proposal when we return and the Senate Energy Committee starts discussing this proposal. But because gas prices are still high, and because we still need to address where we are going as a country, I want to make sure this Senator stands firm on the fact that we cannot continue to tread water or stay in the same place. We need to take the same aggressive actions previous administrations did, as we changed our investment strategy, as we put the Nation on call for an emergent need, and moved forward on a policy.

That is what I call progress. The Europeans already understand this. That is why they are making a significant investment in renewable energy technology. The Japanese understand this. That is why their automakers are making big investments and cornering the market on fuel efficiency technologies and vehicles. And even China understands this because they have put in place higher fuel efficiency standards than in the United States. What we need to do is recognize the energy future by planning for it, not with half-baked policies that dither around the margins of the problem but with real leadership on an energy economy of the future.

I hope that tonight the President will address the American people and tell us what his real plan is to lower gas prices in the future, to give America an independence from our overdependence on foreign oil. I hope he will give this country the kind of boost that previous administrations have, by leading the way with new technology investments and a vision of the future that will give our country the national and economic security it deserves. I think he will find that there are many Americans waiting to hear that plan--there are farmers, environmentalists, businesspeople, certainly a number of us in the Senate and, I would say to the President, even some of the neocons of previous administrations who are ready to hear an energy strategy that gets us off of our overdependence on foreign oil. I look forward to those comments.

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

Mr. President, Governor Gregoire has already declared a drought in Washington State and I know my colleagues and I remain very concerned about what appears to be yet another year of devastating drought throughout the West, and the hazards this could pose in terms of increased fire risk and threats to public safety.

But today, I want to focus the majority of my comments on a topic that I have focused on and hope my colleagues will pay close attention to as the 2005 fire season approaches. That's the issue of wildland firefighter safety.

Many of my colleagues are probably aware of the fact that every summer, we send thousands of our constituents--many of them brave young men and women, college students on summer break--into harm's way to protect our Nation's rural communities and public lands. These men and women serve our Nation bravely.

Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost their lives in the line of duty. These firefighters represented a mix of Federal and State employees, volunteers and independent contractors. And they lost their lives for an array of reasons. We all realize that fighting fires on our Nation's public lands is an inherently dangerous business. But what we cannot and must not abide are the preventable deaths-- losing firefighters because rules were broken, policies ignored and no one was held accountable.

A number of my colleagues will recall that, in 2001, this issue was pushed to the fore in the State of Washington, because of a horrible tragedy. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the midst of the second worst drought in the history of our State, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control.

Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21.

Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own report on the Thirtymile fire, the tragedy ``could have been prevented.'' At that time, I said that I believe we in Congress and management within the firefighting agencies have a responsibility to ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile fire ever happened again.

I would like to thank my colleague Senator Bingaman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as Senator Wyden, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. In the wake of the Thirtymile fire, they agreed to convene hearings on precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from the grief-stricken families.

In particular, the powerful testimony of Ken Weaver--the father of one of the lost firefighters--put into focus precisely what's at stake when we send these men and women into harm's way.

I can think of no worse tragedy than a parent confronting the loss of a child, especially when that loss could have been prevented by better practices on the part of federal agencies.

At the Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that lead to unnecessary fatalities.

Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to the agency's training and safety protocols, and what I've heard when I have visited with firefighters over the past 2 years, I do believe the courage of the Thirtymile families to stand up and demand change has had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who are preparing to battle blazes as wildland firefighters.

Yet, I'm deeply saddened by the fact that it's clear we haven't done nearly enough. In July 2003--2 years after Thirtymile--two more firefighters perished, this time at the Cramer fire within Idaho's Salmon-Challis National Forest. Jeff Allen and Shane Heath were killed when the fire burned over an area where they were attempting to construct a landing spot for firefighting helicopters.

After the Thirtymile fire, however, I told the Weavers and the Cravens, the families of Karen FitzPatrick and Jessica Johnson that I believed we owed it to their children to identify the causes and learn from the mistakes that were made in the Okanogan, to make wildland firefighting safer for those who would follow. That is why the findings associated with the Cramer fire simply boggle my mind.

We learned at Thirtymile that all ten of the agencies' Standing Fire Orders and many of the 18 Watch Out Situations--the most basic safety rules--were violated or disregarded. The same thing happened at Cramer, where Heath and Allen lost their lives 2 years later.

After the Thirtymile Fire, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted an investigation and levied against the Forest Service five citations for Serious and Willful violations of safety rules. It was eerie, then, when just in March 2004 OSHA concluded its investigation of Cramer. The result: another five OSHA citations, for Serious, Willful and Repeat violations.

Reading through the list of causal and contributing factors for Cramer and putting them next to those associated with the Thirtymile fire, my colleagues would be struck by the many disturbing similarities. Even more haunting are the parallels between these lists and the factors cited in the investigation of 1994's South Canyon Fire on Storm King Mountain in Colorado.

It's been more than a decade since those 14 firefighters lost their lives on Storm King Mountain--and yet, the same mistakes are being made over and over again.

These facts have also been documented by an audit and memorandum issued last September by the Department of Agriculture's Inspector General. The IG found that ``accidents on the South Canyon, Thirtymile, and Cramer Fires, all of which involved fatalities, could have been avoided if certain individuals had followed standard safety practices and procedures in place at the time.''

The IG also noted that the Forest Service ``has not timely implemented actions to improve its safety programs.'' Some 27 of 81 action items identified as a result of the Storm King and Thirtymile Fires--or roughly a third--had not been fully implemented years later. While I know that the IG is monitoring implementation of some of these items, the stark similarities between Storm King, Thirtymile, and

Cramer make it seem positively astounding that the Forest Service still finds my bill ``not necessary.''

I don't believe that's acceptable. The firefighters we send into harm's way this year--and the ones we've already lost--deserve better.

Training, leadership and management problems have been cited in all of the incidents I've discussed. Frankly, I have believed since the Thirtymile tragedy that the Forest Service has on its hands a cultural problem. What can we do, from the legislative branch, to provide this agency with enough motivation to change? I believe the first step we can take is to equip ourselves with improved oversight tools, so these agencies know that Congress is paying attention. Today I'm re- introducing legislation--the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2005-- that would do just that.

I believe this is a modest yet important proposal. It was already passed once by the Senate, as an amendment to the 2003 Healthy Forests legislation. However, I was disappointed that it was not included in the conference version of the bill. But it is absolutely clear to me-- particularly in light of OSHA's review of the Cramer Fire--that these provisions are needed now more than ever.

First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2005 will require the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds the agencies expend for firefighter safety and training.

Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role-- ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency, and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time-- without a separate break-down of these funds.

Second, it will require the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and training programs.

Congress has the responsibility to ensure needed reforms are implemented. As such, I believe that Congress and the agencies alike would benefit from an annual check-in on these programs. I would also hope that this would serve as a vehicle for an ongoing and healthy dialogue between the Senate and agencies on these issues.

Third, my bill would stipulate that federal contracts with private firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to monitor compliance with this requirement.

This is important not just for the private contractor employees' themselves--but for the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the fire line.

The Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2005 is a modest beginning in addressing the challenges posed by integrating private and federal contract crews--and doing it in a manner that maximizes everyone's safety on the fire line.

I hope my colleagues will support this simple legislation. Ultimately, the safety of our Federal firefighters is a critical component of how well prepared our agencies are to deal with the threat of catastrophic wildfire.

Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we send into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training programs.

We owe it to our Federal wildland firefighters, their families and their State partners--and to future wildland firefighters.

My bill will provide this body with the additional tools it needs to do the job.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray, and former Senate Indian Affairs Committee chairman, Senator Inouye of Hawaii. The bill I submit today, which is identical to S. 1438 which passed the Senate unanimously on November 19, 2004, provides an equitable settlement of a longer standing injustice to the Spokane Tribe of Indians.

For more than half a century, the Columbia Basin Project has made an extraordinary contribution to this Nation. It helped pull the economy out of the Great Depression. It provided the electricity that produced aluminum required for airplanes and weapons that ensured our national security. The project continues to produce enormous revenues for the United States. It is a key component of the agricultural economy in eastern Washington and plays a pivotal role in the electric systems serving the entire western United States.

However, these benefits have come at a direct cost to tribal property that became inundated when the U.S. Government built the Grand Coulee Dam. Before dam construction, the free flowing Columbia River supported robust and plentiful salmon runs and provided for virtually all of the subsistence needs of the Spokane Tribe. After construction, the Columbia and its Spokane River tributary flooded tribal communities, schools, and roads, and the remaining stagnant water continues to erode reservation lands today.

The legislation Senators Inouye, Murray and I are introducing today is similar to P.L. 103-436, which was enacted in 1994 to provide just compensation to the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes. This bill would provide the Spokane Tribe of Indians with compensation for the use of its lands for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam under a formula based in part on that by which the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation were compensated in the Colville Tribes' settlement legislation in 1994. The Spokane Tribe lost lands equivalent in area to 39.4 percent of the lands lost to Colville Tribes a settlement based solely on this factor would result in a proportional payment of 39.4 percent to the Spokane Tribe. This was the formula basis for similar Spokane settlement legislation introduced in the Senate and House in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress. However, based upon good faith, honorable and extensive negotiations by and between the Spokane Tribe, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation the National Park Service during the past year, this percentage has been reduced to 29 percent in recognition of the fact that certain lands taken for the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam would be restored to the Spokane Tribe under the terms of this legislation. The legislation reserves a perpetual right, power, and easement over the land transferred to carry out the Columbia Basin Project under the Columbia Basin Project Act, 16 U.S.C. 835 et seq.

The United States has a trust responsibility to maintain and protect the integrity of all tribal lands with its borders. When Federal actions physically or economically impact or harm, our Nation has a legal responsibility to address and compensate the damaged parties. Unfortunately, despite countless effort, half a century has passed without justice to the Spokane people.

In hearings before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on October 2, 2003, Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment, General Accounting Office testified:

A reasonable case can be made to settle the Spokane Tribe's

case along the lines of the Colville settlement--a one-time

payment from the U.S. Treasury for past lost payments for

water power values and annual payments primarily from

Bonneville [BPA]. Bonneville continues to earn revenues from

the Spokane reservation lands used to generate hydropower.

However, unlike the Colville Tribes, the Spokane Tribe does

not benefit from these revenues. The Spokane Tribe does not

benefit because it missed its filing opportunity before the

Indian Claims Commission. At that time it was pursuing other

avenues to win payments for the value of its land for

hydropower. These efforts would ultimately fail. Without

congressional action, it seems unlikely that a settlement for

the Spokane Tribe will occur.

The time has come for the Federal Government to finally meet its fiduciary responsibility for converting the Spokane Tribe's resource to its own benefit. Senators Inouye, Murray and I believe that the legislation we are proposing today will finally bring a fair and honorable closure to these matters. We are pleased that similar bipartisan legislation was also introduced today in the U.S House of Representatives.

I look forward to working with the Indian Affairs Committee and Senate colleagues as this legislation proceeds through the Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray, and former Senate Indian Affairs Committee chairman, Senator Inouye of Hawaii. The bill I submit today, which is identical to S. 1438 which passed the Senate unanimously on November 19, 2004, provides an equitable settlement of a longer standing injustice to the Spokane Tribe of Indians.

For more than half a century, the Columbia Basin Project has made an extraordinary contribution to this Nation. It helped pull the economy out of the Great Depression. It provided the electricity that produced aluminum required for airplanes and weapons that ensured our national security. The project continues to produce enormous revenues for the United States. It is a key component of the agricultural economy in eastern Washington and plays a pivotal role in the electric systems serving the entire western United States.

However, these benefits have come at a direct cost to tribal property that became inundated when the U.S. Government built the Grand Coulee Dam. Before dam construction, the free flowing Columbia River supported robust and plentiful salmon runs and provided for virtually all of the subsistence needs of the Spokane Tribe. After construction, the Columbia and its Spokane River tributary flooded tribal communities, schools, and roads, and the remaining stagnant water continues to erode reservation lands today.

The legislation Senators Inouye, Murray and I are introducing today is similar to P.L. 103-436, which was enacted in 1994 to provide just compensation to the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes. This bill would provide the Spokane Tribe of Indians with compensation for the use of its lands for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam under a formula based in part on that by which the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation were compensated in the Colville Tribes' settlement legislation in 1994. The Spokane Tribe lost lands equivalent in area to 39.4 percent of the lands lost to Colville Tribes a settlement based solely on this factor would result in a proportional payment of 39.4 percent to the Spokane Tribe. This was the formula basis for similar Spokane settlement legislation introduced in the Senate and House in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress. However, based upon good faith, honorable and extensive negotiations by and between the Spokane Tribe, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation the National Park Service during the past year, this percentage has been reduced to 29 percent in recognition of the fact that certain lands taken for the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam would be restored to the Spokane Tribe under the terms of this legislation. The legislation reserves a perpetual right, power, and easement over the land transferred to carry out the Columbia Basin Project under the Columbia Basin Project Act, 16 U.S.C. 835 et seq.

The United States has a trust responsibility to maintain and protect the integrity of all tribal lands with its borders. When Federal actions physically or economically impact or harm, our Nation has a legal responsibility to address and compensate the damaged parties. Unfortunately, despite countless effort, half a century has passed without justice to the Spokane people.

In hearings before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on October 2, 2003, Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment, General Accounting Office testified:

A reasonable case can be made to settle the Spokane Tribe's

case along the lines of the Colville settlement--a one-time

payment from the U.S. Treasury for past lost payments for

water power values and annual payments primarily from

Bonneville [BPA]. Bonneville continues to earn revenues from

the Spokane reservation lands used to generate hydropower.

However, unlike the Colville Tribes, the Spokane Tribe does

not benefit from these revenues. The Spokane Tribe does not

benefit because it missed its filing opportunity before the

Indian Claims Commission. At that time it was pursuing other

avenues to win payments for the value of its land for

hydropower. These efforts would ultimately fail. Without

congressional action, it seems unlikely that a settlement for

the Spokane Tribe will occur.

The time has come for the Federal Government to finally meet its fiduciary responsibility for converting the Spokane Tribe's resource to its own benefit. Senators Inouye, Murray and I believe that the legislation we are proposing today will finally bring a fair and honorable closure to these matters. We are pleased that similar bipartisan legislation was also introduced today in the U.S House of Representatives.

I look forward to working with the Indian Affairs Committee and Senate colleagues as this legislation proceeds through the Congress.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding to my colleague, Senator Murray, and me. We are going to speak about the resolution that the Senate passed, and passed with large support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, which we are very happy to see. The issue of a level playing field for a competitive aerospace market is something that is critically important to the American people and to the workforce of America. I thank our leaders, Senators Frist and Reid, and Senator Baucus for bringing this resolution to the Senate floor today and for moving this through the process so that we can send a message from the Senate about how important we think it is to have a competitive aerospace market.

My colleague has been following this issue for years and is going to lay out some of the issues that we in the United States have been trying to elevate to the point of awareness so we can establish a competitive marketplace. The bottom line is, negotiations that were begun in January of this year between the United States and the European Union to discuss how to battle the competitive aerospace market today that doesn't unfairly have government backing and subsidization of major aerospace manufacturers, those negotiations have broken down. Now we are at a point where the issues to be resolved, specifically launch aid and the financing of the production of a new A350 plane by the European Union, are something it is important to address quickly.

The reason I say that is because we know when you have the financial backing of a government juxtaposed to the financial backing of the private sector, in the United States, when Boeing builds a plane, it goes out and finances that with the backing of the capital markets, of Wall Street, of the private banking institutions, and they have to prove that plane is a success. They don't get any forgiveness on the loan. They don't get any special rate. They don't get any discounts if the plane is not a success. When they go to the capital markets, they have to prove the success of the marketplace.

I can tell you now that success is happening with the 787 plane, the newest product that Boeing launched a year ago and is out there in the marketplace selling today. But they are competing against a plane that is being or has the potential to be financed by the European Union. So if you think about the A350 getting launch aid, or potentially getting launch aid from the European Union, it doesn't matter whether the plane is a success. It doesn't matter how many planes are sold. They have a special arrangement so that in the backing of the financing of that plane, the European Union becomes the deep pocket.

What does that mean to consumers who are buying these planes and what does it mean to the workforce? It means simply this: The Americans have a disadvantage when selling Boeing planes around the globe because they have to meet the competitive markets of private financing while the Europeans--it doesn't matter whether their plane is a success--get the backing of the European Union. The whole global economy is based on a fair and competitive marketplace in which we are going to drive down costs to consumers--the airlines, in this particular case--and we are going to let the best airplane win in the marketplace because they have designed a product that the workforce, the consumers, the aviation industry wants to see.

We don't want government making those decisions. We want the private sector making the decisions. That is why I am so glad the administration has taken an aggressive approach on this issue and has pushed for the discussions that are now ending. The administration, through the USTR office in the White House, has said if the European Union continues to use new launch aid subsidies for the A350 plane, then, yes, we are going to go to the World Trade Organization and file a complaint. That is an appropriate action by this administration.

What would be better is if the Europeans would sit down at the table and come back to this discussion that should have been part of the 1992 discussion on how to have a competitive aerospace industry. But that didn't happen. So now in January of this year, the two sides, the European Union and the United States, sat down at a table and said they were going to negotiate in good faith. Part of that negotiation was to have the parties at the table make no new government support agreements during the time of the negotiations. Yet that is exactly what Airbus is now coming in to talk about--subsidies and launch aid for the A350.

It is important that this body send the message it sent today, that we are going to be behind the administration, behind USTR, behind the White House in making sure a fair and competitive aerospace market takes place, that we are not going to sit by and see one manufacturer make a great product that has basically taken off in the marketplace, getting sales, getting people to buy the plane because they built it the old-fashioned way. They had an idea. They had the right feature set. They had the right product. They had the right design and customers are buying that. Yet they may have to compete against somebody who has the deep financial backing of a government that doesn't care whether it is the right feature set or the right product.

So we in the United States care greatly about the competitiveness of this marketplace. We have lots of jobs in aerospace, and we certainly, in Washington State, have benefited from that and so have many of my other colleagues in the Senate because there are probably aerospace manufacturing jobs all over the country.

But the point is that we have to have a competitive marketplace, not just in aerospace but in other areas. The sooner we get back to the table and address the issue of how unfair launch aid is as a concept, the sooner we can get to a competitive marketplace. And the sooner we can get a fair and competitive marketplace, the sooner the consumers will win and the United States will continue to have a level playing field in which our workforce, which is producing a great product that is winning in the marketplace, will continue to win based on the success of their results and not be basically disadvantaged because of an unlevel playing field.

So I am glad to be here with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to speak enthusiastically about the resolution we just passed. I hope it will be noticed by the European Union that we are united--Democrats and Republicans--in getting this issue addressed and that a competitive aerospace market that is driven by private investment backing is the best way to go for us, not just as a nation but for true global competition.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the President of the United States nominated former Representative Rob Portman to serve as our next U.S. representative and trade ambassador. I am hopeful that my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee will move expeditiously to hold a hearing and approve his nomination as soon as possible.

In January of this year, the current U.S. trade representative and a team of European Union negotiators agreed to sit down to try to negotiate a new agreement for how aerospace markets will work in the future. We are 60-days into the 90-day period that they set for their own discussions. Even though our current trade representative, Ambassador Zoellick, has been confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, he is going to continue negotiating on behalf of the U.S. Government. I know these negotiations are in very capable hands, and I applaud the aggressive stance being taken by the Administration on these trade talks.

These trade talks were entered into by both sides knowing full well that World Trade Organization sanctions were a real possibility if the playing field in aerospace does not become fairer. Both sides demonstrated a willingness to get rid of unfair subsidies and a good faith stance on both sides to negotiate. That is why I come to the Senate floor now to make sure the European Union knows we in the United States Senate remain very committed to these discussions. We are also very concerned that they are not at the table in good faith, if in fact the clock is ticking away and we are not making progress towards the goal of eliminating unfair subsidized financing of airplanes.

That 90-day clock is indeed ticking, and if a settlement is going to be reached on this matter without WTO intervention, it needs to happen immediately. There are fewer than 30 days left in the agreed time frame.

From the news reports, these discussions seem to be at a standstill. Obviously, these discussions need to be re-energized and, hopefully, achieve a successful end result. Otherwise, as I have mentioned, the parties will be forced into a WTO battle, and I am sure Congress will consider other tools that are at our disposal, as the administration continues to seek swift and firm action in this case.

To date, the Bush administration and the trade negotiators have shown solid leadership and strong resolve, first in bringing this case to the WTO last fall. Second, it approached subsequent negotiations with the EU in a serious commitment to reach an end resolution.

I have to say, in the beginning it seemed that the Europeans were equally interested in a settlement because Commissioner Mandelson, the European Union's chief negotiator, signaled in a public comment, ``We need to make progress, and I intend to do so.'' This was reported by the Bloomberg News Service. He also said: ``The objectives of the negotiations are primarily to establish fair market-based competition between Boeing and Airbus.''

Despite these public comments, EU negotiator actions and subsequent rhetoric suggest something different than ending unfair subsidized financing. Instead of a genuine commitment to end subsidies, the Europeans have walked away from their commitment to this goal.

Now, it seems that the discussions may be dragged out over a much longer period of time, maybe avoiding resolution or delaying a path to actually eliminating these subsidies. It is very important that the EU meet its commitment to end these negotiations on time.

When these parties reached an initial accord in 1992, a number of important issues were unresolved. We do not want to make the same mistake this time by leaving too much on the table, only to see the WTO come in, in a process that we know will be more of a winner-take-all process.

In particular, EU negotiators must remain intent in staying at the table to discuss the issue of launch aid, the single most troublesome issue that I think we need to discuss. The United

States cannot stand by while the EU stalls these discussions about launch aid.

Today, we all know the aerospace industry remains very important to the United States. The aerospace sector generates about 15 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product. However, I think the real issue for us is that the United States builds and finances planes through Wall Street and the private marketplace. Our domestic companies should not have to compete against the backing of European governments, against the deep pockets of governments that distort the global marketplace.

If, in fact, the EU drags its feet, how will these issues be resolved? Will they continue to argue that these launch aid subsidies are not the issue? Launch aid has provided Airbus with over $15 billion in subsidization, really unfairly propping up Airbus at the expense of the U.S. aerospace market and its workers. In the last 15 years, the U.S. aerospace industry has lost about 700,000 jobs.

Essentially, launch aid becomes a risk-free, low-cost government bank for the development of new lines of aircraft. The company only needs to repay the loans if the new product succeeds. Nowhere in our private sector does anybody, any company, get such a deal that they only have to pay the banker back if, in fact, the product succeeds. So this is a very important issue.

Obviously, launch aid puts our domestic manufacturers at an unfair competitive disadvantage. Airbus remains unfettered by the realities of the marketplace when launching new jetliners, while American companies must assume substantial market risk every time they unveil a new product. If Airbus bets on the wrong plane, no problem, no harm, no foul, the loans are forgiven. This means Airbus can proceed with the design and production of a new plane without ever turning a profit on an existing product line. It also means that Airbus can undercut the price and pursue more aggressive financing practices than the U.S. can. Obviously, you can see the end result is that Airbus can offer a cheaper plane in the marketplace by unfairly subsidizing the financing of their planes.

Well, nevertheless, Airbus has continued, even though it has grown into a mature company, to receive 33 percent of the funding for its product development from European governments since 1992, translating into billions in launch aid loans at below market rates. At the same time, it has avoided an additional $35 billion in current debt due to this subsidy. This launch aid distorts the global marketplace.

What we want to see in aerospace is competition that drives opportunities for the consumers. I believe that is why the United States has taken its aggressive position in saying that it will go to the WTO if necessary. I think it is time now to make sure that these negotiations between the United States and the European Union, which originally were announced in January, are completed as soon as possible. But maybe it is not surprising that they are lagging at this moment.

I say that because Airbus has moved ahead with a plan to submit $1.7 billion in an application for new launch aid for a new airplane, the A- 350, which is designed to compete head-to-head with the Boeing 787. While negotiations to end launch aid are ongoing, there is simultaneously a new application to the European Union to support launch aid for a new plane. I believe that is probably why the Airbus CEO stated, about the new plane, the A-350: `` . . . is easily financeable [sic] by Airbus without launch aid, but as long as there is refundable launch aid available, we will apply for it.'' This means, as long as they can get refunds later on launch aid, they will apply for it.

So while the European Union is supposedly at the table negotiating with the United States about getting rid of launch aid subsidies, it is continuing to discuss deals about launch aid for new planes.

It is clear that this does not paint a pretty picture. The European Union cannot have it both ways. It cannot pretend to be serious about negotiations with the United States to end launch aid subsidies and all the while sending a wink to Airbus about launch aid for the A-350.

The EU must level with the American public and the global community on whether it is serious about ending unfair subsidized financing of their aircraft.

Specifically, I think Commissioner Mandelson and the EU should consider the following actions: first, EU negotiators should declare their opposition to the launch aid for the A-350 and summarily reject the pending application that Airbus has prepared. Second, the EU should also reject all launch aid for future aircraft models.

We need to address these unfair subsidized financing issues and put an end to launch aid so that aircraft financing is on a level playing field. Failure to follow these processes will lead to swift action by our administration and the U.S. Government. Today, the U.S. stands ready to reach a resolution on this issue, but we must have a willing partner. The White House has expressed a strong commitment to finding an agreement, and the President has the backing of this Senator, and I believe many in Congress, to seek a resolution to this issue. I am sure my colleagues will join me in considering all options at our disposal to help find a resolution to this issue.

Last week, I was invited to the Smithsonian for a commemorative celebration of Space Ship One, a successful marvel, sponsored by Paul Allen and many others. The celebration marked the successful launch of the first commercial, manned spaceflight-something from which individual consumers will benefit in the future. The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum gave that award, and the flight signaled a new chapter in aviation history. There's something about the spirit of competition, about a group of people who came together to compete towards an exciting new chapter of aviation, and a level playing field of competition that delivered a great result.

Which is exactly what we have to get from the Europeans--a level playing field, to deliver a better result for the entire global community, for consumers, and for purchasers of aerospace and commercial aviation equipment by guaranteeing that we are going to have a level playing field.

I hope that these negotiations will continue in earnest and I am confident that Ambassador Zoellick and the new nominee, Mr. Portman, will continue to be aggressive in resolving this issue. I believe we in the United States have fostered an environment for true competition for the private sector, to drive this industry to the next level. However, we need fair and balanced trade to make that successful.

I hope the Europeans will not stall these discussions, but that they will embrace the idea of fair competition as the end result.

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