Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time do I have allocated to me?

If the Chair will notify me after 40 minutes.

We are now going to go back to the Energy bill. I know many of my colleagues have already been on the floor today discussing the conference report that is before us. While I think my colleagues have done a good job of outlining some of the most egregious parts of this legislation, because it certainly is shocking legislation, the point I would like to make in the next few minutes is about how we got to this process and how America is very disappointed in what we have come up with as far as a conference report.

It should be no surprise to people here when they find out that this bill has basically been drafted in secret without a bipartisan effort, without a lot of daylight shown on the details of the legislation until just this weekend. Now many people are curiously reading through various aspects of the legislation trying to understand all the giveaways, all the subsidies, and whether it could possibly mesh into any kind of comprehensive energy policy. I think the bill is a disaster as it relates to moving us off our foreign dependence and coming up with a concrete energy

policy. It should be no surprise, when this energy policy legislation started with a task force meeting with the Vice President in which no input was given, no open session as to what was being discussed.

That a bill is brought here to the House and Senate that ultimately included a conference report drafted in secret makes it very difficult for us to have good legislation. But don't take my word for that because I do want to discuss the policy ramifications. Let's talk about what America is saying.

In the last 24 hours, we have had a variety of people around the country, particularly in the press, look at this legislation and actually make editorial comment on it. When I woke up this morning and saw the stack of editorials that are before us on each Member's desk, I was shocked to read the detail and comments from newspapers all over the country. That is good news because it means America is watching this energy policy, that those of us in the Northwest who have suffered from Enron market manipulation are not the only ones watching, that those in New York who have suffered through blackouts are not the only ones watching, that people all across America are.

In fact, the question is, Are we better off having to pass this Energy bill or are we better off without it?

I will take from what the Great Falls Tribune said:

Once again, let this energy bill die.

Why would somebody say that? Some of my colleagues are trying to say this Energy bill actually has a concrete policy. According to the Great Falls Tribune: We are as certain today as we have been for a of couple years that no Energy bill is a better option than the bills being hashed around in the marble halls of Washington, DC.

Other newspapers have said this bill should be a ``do not pass go.''

The Minneapolis Star Tribune, again an independent newspaper organization, that probably, if it took a close look at this bill, saw there were some projects that the State of Minnesota could benefit from. Yet they say the Energy bill is a fine target for filibuster. A newspaper organization in a State that actually has energy projects in this bill thinks we should filibuster this bill:

The energy bill unveiled over the weekend is wrong headed

policy prepared in a high handed way, fitted with perhaps

enough gifts to selected opponents to buy its passage. It's

an abusive approach to lawmaking, egregious enough to

deserve--indeed, to invite--a filibuster.

That is from a State that has energy projects in it. So this is a national energy policy, which some, such as colleagues on the other side, like to talk about. According to the Houston Chronicle, in a State that would benefit in the millions of dollars from different subsidies and sweetheart deals in this legislation, they say:

Fix the Flaws.

A bill setting out a national energy policy should

encourage conservation, investment and new technology;

increase available energy; make the distribution system more

reliable; and reduce pollution from burning fuel. The energy

bill unshrouded Monday by congressional Republicans is, at

best, half of a loaf that has been dropped repeatedly in the

dirt.

Some people say this was a process, it went through committee hearings and through all sorts of hearings, and we had discussions on the floor. I remind my colleagues that we got to this point on July 31 of this year where we could not agree on an energy bill. I personally thought we should hold the bill up at that time and send it back and basically make the point that it wasn't going to be a successful product, hoping my colleagues would go back to the drawing board and get more bipartisan legislation.

What happened was, we got so desperate, we passed last year's Senate bill and many of us said: We know what will happen. They are going to take last year's Senate bill and dump it and overreach in the conference because it will be controlled by the Republicans, not in a bipartisan policymaking fashion, but they are going to overreach. A lot of people say this has been written by the energy lobbyists.

The Philadelphia Inquirer said:

The Energy Bill: Lobbyists Gone Wild.

They say:

After all, there's something for everyone here. Everyone,

that is, with enough dough to finance a lobbyist's next pair

of Gucci [shoes].

It is amazing that so many newspapers have so much on the ball and took time in their editorial pages in the last couple of days to shine the bright light on this policy that has been drafted in the dark and not in a bipartisan fashion.

The Chicago Tribune said:

Energy Legislation on the Fly.

If those problems don't sink the bill, the process by which

the Republican majority cobbled it together certainly ought

to. Democrats literally were locked out of the final

negotiations, and now Congress--and the public--have about 48

hours to digest and evaluate the contents of this mammoth

document. This is no way to craft sensible national energy

policy.

That was the Chicago Tribune.

My colleague, Senator Durbin from Illinois, has been out here talking about the MTBE provisions and how those who might be affected by that and the public might become deep pockets on what really is the responsibility of individual businesses. But I think he should be very proud that his hometown newspaper is trying to educate people all over Illinois who might think, gee, what is wrong with this bill? Probably ethanol provisions are in it, and it ought to be a good bill. They are actually doing the work to show that this is quite controversial.

Another newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, wrote something pretty humorous:

Indigestion Before the Holidays.

The Old Testament is only slightly longer and is a lot more

readable. . . .

We should take our time with this bill.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press is obviously pointing to what Members would refer to as pork-lined elements:

Energy Bill Lavishes Billions to Drill . . .

I don't think that is what we thought the future energy policy of America would be--lavishing billions to drill. We thought we were going to have an energy policy that was about innovation, technology, about moving forward on conservation, and about alternative fuels. Not that we didn't think we were going to continue to use some fossil fuels, but we didn't think we would lavish billions on them.

We also heard from USA Today. At a time when we have ballooning deficits, what is this bill doing to help us get on the right track? They said:

Costly Local Giveaways Overload Energy Plan.

The Nation can't afford an energy program that drives up

the Federal deficit without addressing critical problems.

Part of this is not addressing critical problems. There are many aspects of this earlier legislation draft that I think could have gone a long way toward getting us on track with jobs, along with the Alaskan natural gas pipeline, that probably are not going to come about now, which could have gotten us further ahead on a hydrogen fuel economy and would have established U.S. leadership in that new technology. Yet that was left out of the bill.

The Wall Street Journal, which I think has followed the energy debate very closely, was shocked to find out in the last couple of days:

The fact that it's being midwifed by Republicans, who claim

to be free marketers, arguably makes it worse. By claiming

credit for passing this ``comprehensive'' energy reform,

Republicans are now taking political ownership of whatever

blackouts and energy shortages ensue. Good luck.

Why is that? That is the Wall Street Journal, and it is basically putting these issues that have happened in America already--energy blackouts and shortages--on the other side of the aisle, on their lap, and saying this policy isn't going to work.

I have to say, as a former businessperson, we have had a lot of debate about standard market design and regional transmission organizations. I want to see free markets work. But free markets work when there is transparency and when there are rules in place. This legislation does very little to provide for transparency in the market. I think that, along with many of the other items of oversubsidization and special interest initiatives in this legislation, is what drew the Wall Street Journal to say it is not a good piece of legislation.

What else do people say?

The Concord Monitor basically said this is:

Abuse of Power: The Federal Energy Bill is Ultimately Worse

Than No Bill At All.

That is what America is starting to understand--that this policy is worse

than no bill at all. It is a disappointment that we are at this stage of the ball game, and I have to say as a member of the Energy Committee for the last almost 3 years, before joining the committee, I talked to colleagues and former members about joining that committee. People pointed out to me that it had been almost 10 years since the last time we had an energy bill pass out of that committee. Who knew whether we would have an energy policy in the future? I think it is safe to say, with this product in front of us, we bit off more than we could chew by cobbling together a bill that is not really centered around the future energy policy but is specific giveaways to individuals so that they will buy in on support of this legislation. But it is worse than I could have imagined, and certainly doing nothing is better than this legislation.

What about the blackouts? I know some of my colleagues would like to say this is legislation that is going to move us forward in this area. I can tell you what the Providence Journal said:

Energy Gridlock.

Unfortunately, Congress seems intent on passing a bill that

does nothing to make our energy supply cleaner, safer, or

more affordable, and certainly does nothing to prevent a

major failure. We hope that it won't take another huge

blackout for Congress to see the light.

That was written in the last week or so.

I have a lot to complain about here because my predecessor--we had a blackout in the Northwest prior to New York's, and my predecessor, former Senator Slade Gorton, actually proposed reliability standards and a process for moving forward so that the industry was accountable for energy supply and standards that would prevent us from having blackouts.

What happened? His legislation actually passed out of the Senate and got held hostage in the House because the industry wanted more deregulation before they were going to put reliability standards in place. How is that responsible?

Now we are moving forward on an energy bill that basically, at best, as it relates to FERC and its jurisdiction and responsibility, is confusing and muddling. We do nothing about the market manipulation issue of Enron in this legislation.

While I would like to believe the reliability standards will help in some ways, I don't know, given the overall aspects of the bill, that they are going to be as helpful as we need them to be. Why should we have to be told that you have to swallow the whole energy policy that is bad for America just to get reliability standards so people in New York or Ohio or Michigan can be sure their lights will turn on at night? That is a ridiculous policy. This body should have passed reliability standards as a stand-alone bill when Slade Gorton proposed it, and it should have passed it as soon as we came back after the August recess.

I am amazed again at how many newspapers across the country are writing about this bill. We talk about, obviously, some of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act issues, and I will get to those in a minute.

The Fresno Bee calls this legislation ``political wheezing.''

They say:

The valley representatives in Congress have put a

particular stake in this fight. The problems of air

pollution, especially diesel particulate matter, are worse

here than anywhere else, and we must do everything we can to

address this.

What about the Ventura County Star newspaper talking about the obviously bad coastal oil and gas language? Every year on the west coast there is a battle that goes on. Basically, we have had for 20- some years now a moratorium on drilling off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California. While that is an Executive order moratorium, we always have to worry that some interest or some group is going to try to lift that moratorium. It happens every year, and every year in an appropriations bill Congress continues to say: We want a moratorium on drilling off our coast of Washington, Oregon, and California.

Why do we have to drill there? We have marine sanctuaries. We have terrific problems with tanker traffic and a variety of other issues. We have had spills off the coast of Washington that have caused incredible damage. Why do we have to worry now about legislation that makes that issue more cloudy by saying you could give the Secretary the power to expedite and approve a process on this? What did the Ventura County Star say?

They said:

Instead of trying to continually slip in language that

harms the Nation's coast lines, puts thousands of communities

at risk of an economic and environmental disaster, Congress

should be focused on the public's welfare, the environment,

and the rights of States to protect their residents.

This bill undermines those rights. It undermines States rights, it undermines the rights of individuals, and it will leave our shorelines less protected.

What did the Nashville Tennessean say? It said:

An energy bill without savings has no steam. The President

and his allies have built an energy policy on their

convenience--

On their convenience.

When they are willing to build on conservation, then

they'll have an energy policy that will work for all

Americans.

Makes sense, doesn't it? The bottom line is, this bill is what some people are saying. It is about Hooters and polluters. It is about special interests. It is not about a conservation policy that is good for America, and it does very little to get us off our dependence on foreign oil. America deserves better.

If our generation has been smart enough to put a man on the Moon, our generation can be smart enough to get off our dependence on foreign oil, but we in this body have to do our job. We have to draft an energy policy that has a vision, that has a focus, that has the right incentives and ask America to step up and help with this process.

I wish to continue with a few other charts. The Orlando Sentinel agrees with what I have just articulated and that is a concern about this Energy bill and where the focus is for tax breaks.

The Orlando Sentinel said:

Start over: The energy bill before Congress is worse than

what exists.

Why do they say that? They articulate:

Two-thirds of the tax breaks will go to the oil and natural

gas and coal industries, helping to perpetuate this country's

dependence on fossil fuels.

A lot of people hear about these tax breaks and think we are talking about new technology, either smart metering, wind energy, or something--even clean coal. But the clean coal percentages of the dollars spent on tax incentives in this bill are very minor as well. So we are spending money on subsidies, but we are spending them in the wrong direction.

What does America say when you ask them about this? What do they say when you say: Gee, here's the choice. The question to them is, Do you support giving subsidies to oil and natural gas companies and giving tax incentives. Basically, when you read a description of this, the majority of voters in this country, 55 percent of them, think Congress would be better off if we didn't pass this legislation. A majority of Americans are already saying they are not interested in this legislation.

This bill is about as bad as it gets. Obviously, I am encouraging my colleagues to vote no. As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said:

Put backroom energy bill out of country's misery.

It goes on to urge, when Members of Congress have the chance, ``Members of Congress who remain committed to a more rational energy policy . . . shouldn't hesitate to reject it.

I have just read for my colleagues, not my thoughts, but the thoughts of newspapers around the country. Why did I do that? I am sure my colleagues can read. I know they have busy schedules today. I know they have these editorials on their desks. I spent time to do that because I want them to know that America is watching, and America expects us to stand up and do the right thing. This bill that we have had very little time to really understand, and basically on this side of the aisle have been shut out of the process as it relates to the conference report, are trying to respond in very short order to say that this bill is a mistake. I want my colleagues to know that the rest of America is watching.

Some of these issues my colleagues have gone over before, but I want to articulate a few of my objections to this legislation because I think it is important for America to understand the various aspects of this legislation.

First, there are a variety of environmental laws that are basically undermined by this legislation: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Outer Continental Shelf public lands issues. I ask myself: Why is it that we have to undermine current environmental law to have a national energy policy? I have sat on the Energy Committee in various hearings about public lands, about energy companies, about getting more supply. I have not heard an industry show up and testify that they have to do something about the Clean Water Act, but this legislation does undermine the Clean Water Act. It exempts all construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from the coverage of runoff requirements under the Clean Water Act.

Is that what America wants? Is America so desperate for new oil and gas drilling sites that they say the runoff at those sites are something from which those particular industries should get an exemption? Everybody else who is a developer in America has to deal with runoff. It is not an easy problem.

We set a priority. We said we wanted clean water in America and so we set standards. So why would we let new oil and gas construction out of that?

We, obviously, care about clean air. Why do we have to have an energy policy that basically changes clean air attainment levels that we have already set in policy just to get new energy construction? Is that what the Congress thinks the message ought to be? Obviously, this legislation is a rewrite of existing law and it postpones ozone attainment standards across the country. This is a matter that was never considered in the House and Senate bill and that has now been inserted into the conference report. That is what one gets out of a secret process. They get bad legislation as it relates to some of our strongest environmental laws.

Now, why does a national energy policy have to step on safe drinking water? Are we in such desperate straits to get energy supply that we are willing to say there can be an exemption from safe drinking water? The provisions in this act basically remove an oil and gas extraction technique from regulation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Hydraulic fractioning is a process by which water, sand, and toxic chemicals are injected into rock so the oil and natural gas that they contain can be extracted. So if we do that in some large body of water within my State of Washington, somehow that company that is involved in that technique does not have to meet the regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act?

Somebody who is going to explore for that kind of oil and gas, is it so important for us to have that that somehow we are going to say they do not have to meet safe drinking water standards? I do not understand that.

I already articulated a little bit our concerns about public lands. Since when does an energy policy for America, that ought to be focused on a hydrogen fuel economy, about energy efficiency, about fuel efficiency, a whole variety of things, have to have an assault on public lands?

When drilling on those public lands, one has to pay a royalty. Oh, but under this bill now less is paid because we are forgiving some of those royalties. Why? Because we want to incentivize more oil and gas drilling on public land.

Why? If we look at the research that shows where the availability of oil and gas is, it basically shows on most public lands it is uneconomical; it is hard to reach. One cannot get that far on the access to public lands to make it even efficient. So why now further incentivize it by saying we are going to make them pay less in royalties?

The other thing is it creates this new entity--I do not know what one would want to call it. I do not know if it is the Cheney committee. I do not know what it is, but somewhere in the White House this legislation says now there will be an organization that plays a policy role on expediting oil and gas drilling and making sure that if it is about waiving access to public lands, this group will help get the job done. I do not understand why we have to go through that process of dealing with our public lands to make energy policy work in America.

I think there are many other things we should be doing. Let's talk about a few other things, because I know that I have colleagues who want to chime in on this, but I have to mention a few other things that I was shocked to find in this legislation.

As a Member who spent many hours on the electricity title, I do not understand why this bill has to have an exemption for Texas. Why does the State of Texas get out of compliance with the electricity title as it relates to electricity market rules, market transparency rules that are so important to making markets work, basically protecting the consumer? Texas gets protected from the cost shifting that happens in transmission construction, but the rest of us in the country do not get to be protected.

Now, I wanted to bring this issue up when we were debating this bill in July but we decided, because there was so much turmoil, to take this out and to basically go back to the Senate Democratic bill passed from the previous year just to try to get something going. As I said earlier, now we know what the end result was: A bill in secret in conference that has all sorts of things in it, including this exemption for Texas.

In the electricity title, after what we have seen in California with deregulation, as we have seen with various market manipulation activities, we want better rules. We want transparency. We want things to work and to have individual utilities held accountable, but we are going to exempt Texas. Some of the people have said, well, Texas is not tied to the rest of the country so for some reason Texas should be exempt from this.

Here is the facility right here. This facility does interstate and intrastate commerce and is connected, and if this electricity title is good enough for Washington, good enough for New York, and good enough for Ohio, it ought to be good enough for Texas, too. They should not have an exemption in this bill.

What about the sweetheart deals in this legislation? I could go on actually forever about the sweetheart deals in this legislation. My favorites are the $1.1 billion for a new nuclear facility in Idaho. Not that this Senator has an out and out opposition to nuclear facilities. We have some in Washington State. I spend a good deal of my time talking about Hanford cleanup and the billions of dollars taxpayers have spent on trying to clean up nuclear waste. But why are we going to spend $1.1 billion for a new nuclear facility in Idaho to see if nuclear power can produce hydrogen? There are thousands of ways to produce hydrogen. You do not have to have a new nuclear facility to do it.

My other favorite little part of the sweetheart deal is basically a process in the bill in which DOE can help pay for and finance the transmission hookups that might end up being used for a coal company in Texas.

My colleagues might say, well, geez, if someone has new power and they want to put it on the transmission grid in my State they get in line. If they have capacity and they want to be added to the grid, they come to the Bonneville Power Administration and work with them about how they are going to add capacity to the grid, but they do not have DOE coming in and basically saying they will help them get connected and get capacity to the grid.

That is just part of the aspects of this legislation, the many sweetheart deals. I am sure many of my colleagues are going to go through this and talk in more detail about some of this legislation, but this energy policy, more than anything else, is a missed opportunity. Instead of incentivizing the right programs, we are spending $23.5 billion in tax incentives where only a small percentage of them go to the renewables, conservation, and energy efficiency that America thought it was investing in when it heard about this energy policy.

The whole provision that we talked about dealing with hydrogen fuel, which was an investment in goals and basically a process for us to get to a hydrogen economy, have been thrown out of the legislation. The only thing that remains is sort of a small incentive for that.

What about creating the clean energy economy of the future in which we thought we could estimate a creation of 750,000 jobs in America over the next 10 years by focusing on these energy efficiencies? Well, if they are spending

$23.5 billion and only have 32 percent going to that, those 750,000 jobs are never going to be created in America.

I know my colleague from New York wants to speak, and I know I have other colleagues who want to speak, so I will try to wrap up, but I feel disappointed for the policy opportunity that is being missed. America wants to know what this legislation is about. They want to know where we are going with energy policy. This policy could be far more reaching in response, not just to the crises that we have had in Washington, California, and Oregon, and not just to the policies of blackouts or the fact that these institutions, the House and the Senate, have not passed a reliability standard that would give people in New York and other places in the country the kind of security they need. We are missing a big opportunity to be leaders in energy policy in the world. You might hear some people say we are going to get this national grid. It is not about a national grid. I guarantee we are not going to build a national grid and ship power from Seattle to Miami Beach, and anybody who tells you that they are going to does not understand energy policy. A national grid is not about shipping power all the way across the country. We are entering an era of distributed power. That means you produce power closer to the source and to the individuals who want to have it.

What do you do now that you have hydrogen fuel cells? You have new forms of energy that can connect to the grid. What do you do to make that a reality? First of all, you obviously provide the right transparency and stabilization of the system and give oversight to an entity that hopefully does its job. Obviously FERC, in a lot of instances, has failed to do its job. But you create these decentralized energy plans in which individuals can connect their power source and their generation to the grid and have it delivered in that region. That is the most economical delivery of energy. That is the future.

This bill does not invest in that. It does not invest in net metering, which would basically have a framework for people to understand how to get their power source onto the grid. It doesn't invest in an interconnecting standard by which everybody could start understanding how they could connect to the grid. It doesn't even set standards for some of these new technologies that everybody wants to be part of developing. There should not only be a national standard for the United States on how to build a hydrogen economy, it ought to be an international standard so the United States can be a leader in job creation in that new economy. But that is not in this bill.

As bad as this legislation is, and it is bad, my colleagues should make no mistake; this bill should not pass. But the tragedy is that America is not grabbing its future opportunity to both get off of its dependence on foreign oil and also to invest in an energy economy that will produce jobs and have America lead the way in new energy technology. Let's not embarrass America by passing this bad legislation that undermines environmental laws, that puts the tax incentives in the wrong way, runs the deficit up without giving us a return on jobs, that basically does little to address the market manipulation and blackout situations that happened in the past and, as I am sure my colleague from New York will talk about, really sticks some Americans with the deep pocket expenses of cleaning up waste.

Let's not pass this legislation. Let's listen to America. Let's listen to what those newspapers are saying because they are the first shot at this legislation and they understand. Let's go back to work, even if it means next year. Let's go back to work and let's put an Energy bill together that America can be proud of. Let's make it a goal of our generation that we are going to get off our foreign dependence, but we are going to do it the right way--the Members of this body will work together to get that legislation done.

I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mr. President, does the Senator from Illinois wish to speak? I yield to the Senator from Illinois 5 minutes.

I will probably have about 10 minutes left and we will wrap up.

Mr. President, I will not take all 10 minutes. I know we have other colleagues in the Chamber. I wish to make one final point.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for continuing his talk about this issue as it impacts his State and national policy which we are all trying to fight. But many of my colleagues know that on one provision in the Energy bill relating to Enron, we really tried to make a point. In fact, 57 Members of this body passed an amendment, albeit on the Agriculture appropriations bill because we couldn't get it on the Energy bill when we recessed in August, which basically said we think market manipulation has taken place and something needs to be done about it.

In fact, at that time I argued that in this legislation we ought to have a prohibition on the types of market manipulation that actually happened with Enron and include that in the Energy bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle drafted language that basically prohibited one of the Enron abuses but not all of the Enron abuses. But in a separate piece of legislation, we got 57 of my colleagues--a majority of Senators--to say, Let's say that market manipulation on contracts was wrong.

That language still exists in a conference committee on Agriculture appropriations. That language is sitting there hoping we will get it out of conference, even though the industry is lobbying against it. Yes, that is right. The remnants of Enron are lobbying against it.

What do we do? In this conference report, we basically change current Federal law and say those contracts shouldn't stand. We go one step further in the Federal Power Act and say manipulated contracts are not in the public's interest.

This legislation should be defeated alone on the fact that it continues the Enron price gouging. We as a body failed to stand up to that kind of activity. We can say all we want about the reforms we have with the SEC, all the reforms we had on auditing, but in our energy policy we have done nothing to be the policemen on the street. These energy companies, under this legislation, are still going to run free to continue to manipulate market. Not only that, we are putting in this bill that it is OK to do so.

I urge my colleagues: Please, in the next 24 hours review this legislation

carefully. It has so many issues that are the wrong direction for our country.

I urge my colleagues to stand up to the special interests that have promulgated this bill and say no to the conference report.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I know we are still under consideration of the Energy conference report and many Members have been to the floor talking about the prescription drug conference report as well.

Before we adjourn, whatever date that is, sometime in the very near future, hopefully before the Thanksgiving holiday, it is imperative that this body take a stance and pass the unemployment benefit extension before we go home.

We are in the same position we were in virtually a year ago. What has changed? The economy might have gotten slightly better but not really much better. We have a .4 percent improvement in the unemployment rate. We in Washington State are still just above 7 percent in unemployment.

The reason we do the unemployment benefit extension program at the Federal level is to help States, which includes those that have been hardest hit by unemployment, get some extra weeks of unemployment benefits. It has been a successful program in the times of downturns of our economy. During the first Bush and Clinton administrations, when our economy was not doing so well, we basically extended Federal unemployment benefits for a total of 30 months. At that time, the benefits were at the Federal level, 20 additional weeks.

We are at this point in time now where we have extended the Federal program in this recession for about 22 months. Yet while we have seen a slight economic improvement, as I said, .4 percent, I believe it is not enough to continue the improvements we would like to see in our economy.

In an economic downturn, make no mistake about it, working Americans would rather have a paycheck than an unemployment check. But giving people an unemployment check in times of tough economic situations helps our economy overall. Every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $2.15 of stimulus. That is mortgage payments paid, health care bills that are met, a continuation of the economy at the most stable level we can have when we are not seeing job increases.

It is vitally important, before we adjourn--we have spent all this time debating judges and there was a good debate on both sides--we get back to some of the basic issues that need to be accomplished before we adjourn. Certainly unemployment benefits, I believe, should be that priority.

What is going to happen in December if we adjourn sometime next week--this program expires at the end of December. What is likely, if that happens, is we will see 90,000 people at the national level fall off this benefit program and as many as 2 million people in the first several months of the year could be without unemployment benefits.

Like many of my colleagues, I hope the economy improves. But I don't think we are seeing an indication it will improve that rapidly that soon. To leave these people without benefits at a time when we could be stimulating the economy is irresponsible.

For Washington State, the numbers are similar. We have about 200,000 people in Washington State who will exhaust their benefits in the first 6 months of 2004. I would rather those people be receiving some benefits and having the certainty of receiving those benefits now, even if it is a shorter extension period.

The challenge we ran into last December as we bantered back and forth--and, actually, the Senate did the right thing in the eleventh hour by passing the unemployment benefit extension; the House decided not to act on it. What happened was we left many Americans without certainty of the unemployment benefits.

Some of my colleagues believe nothing happened, that when we got back in January we reconstituted that program and people did not lose a thing. That is not true. I know constituents who made alternative plans, not knowing whether Congress had the intention of extending the unemployment benefit program. There was not the certainty. I had constituents who took money out of pension programs with 30 percent penalties, basically trading off their long-term investment for short- term return because they did not think we were going to extend benefits.

We ought to give working Americans some certainty that as this economy continues to struggle, we are going to be there with unemployment benefits.

My colleague from Nevada has cited several times that many Members of Congress voted to terminate this program. In the 1990s, after we had the 30 months of an extension of employment benefits by both the Bush and Clinton administrations, and after we had a 1.2 percent improvement in the unemployment rate, yes, we curtailed that program. However, we are doing less now, less under more severe economic conditions, than the first President Bush and President Clinton did during that time period. They went for 30 months. They had a Federal program that was 20 weeks instead of the 13 we have now, and they only curtailed the program once they saw a better return to the economy.

I encourage my colleagues to put this bill on the priority list for the next several days. Let's figure out a way to give unemployed Americans some certainty as they face the holiday season. Let's give those millions of people who are going to be impacted by not having this Federal program continued some relief and know we will be also holding up our economy. Let's not say to people that this Congress went ahead and passed tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, did a variety of things that may have been targeted tax credits, but failed to extend to hard-working Americans the unemployment benefit program into which they have paid.

Unanimous Consent Request

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session

and the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I know we are going to move on to other legislation and I am sure we are going to hear from our leaders today about what the rest of the week's schedule looks like and possible strategy for adjournment, but I think it is critically important before we adjourn we address the unemployment needs of Americans. While we in this body last year adjourned without fully taking care of the unemployed and the unemployment benefit extension program, I think it is unconscionable we would do that this year.

While the economy may have slightly improved, we still have huge unemployment across the country. For us in the State of Washington, with nearly 7\1/2\ percent unemployment, this problem continues.

Unemployment benefit insurance is a stimulus. For every dollar paid in unemployment benefits, it generates $2.15 into the economy. This is what we need to be doing to take care of Americans. We cannot continue to give tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans and tax incentives in the Energy bill and tax breaks in a lot of other programs and not take care of basic Americans who would rather have a job but do not have that opportunity and are depending on those unemployment benefits to make mortgage and health care payments.

Last year we really did leave Americans with a lump of coal in their stocking. Instead of saying to them we are going to make sure that as the economy starts to recover we are taking care of you to give you that security, we said we are going to terminate this program. Even though the Senate did its homework and the House failed to pass this, we left many Americans without that security.

Constituents of mine basically took money out of their long-term pension savings at huge penalties just to make up for the unemployment benefit program that would not continue. It is imperative before we adjourn we pass the Unemployment Benefit Program extension.

I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Department of Defense authorization conference bill before us today. The bill will strengthen our Nation's military readiness, procure vitally important weapons systems and provide for our veterans. At the same time, I wish to highlight my concerns about provisions in the bill relating to civilian defense workers and the environment.

I am pleased that the bill allows the U.S. Air Force to move forward with the KC-767 Global Tanker Transport program. By allowing the modernization of our aging tanker fleet, the bill promotes our national security and the security of our friends and allies.

I became involved in this issue more than 2 years ago after visiting Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington State, which is one of the premier basing locations for the Air Force's KC-135 refueling tankers. It was clear to me then, and it is clear to me now, that these aging planes need to be replaced.

With an average age of over 40 years, the KC-135s are the oldest planes in the Air Force, older than most of the pilots that fly them and older than virtually all large commercial aircraft.

The bill authorizes a program that will provide the Air Force one hundred KC-767 aircraft by leasing the first twenty planes and purchasing the remaining eighty. This arrangement is the result of a 2- year effort to find the best way to provide our pilots with the equipment that they desperately need, while protecting the interests of taxpayers. This has been accomplished.

I want to congratulate my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, for their leadership on the Senate Armed Services Committee to develop a solution that will reach our goals. I also want to thank the Air Force and the Department of Defense for working to find the funds that will carry out this program.

I am particularly proud that the Air Force was able to improve our military capability by procuring an American product. Boeing has been the industry leader in the tanker market for fifty years and it has helped ensure our military's air power dominance.

The 767 is built by thousands of men and women in my home State and is sold around the world. I am excited to see that because of this legislation, the Boeing 767 tanker will keep our military flying in the 21st century.

I am also pleased that the bill provides for our Nation's veterans. I am profoundly grateful for the service of America's veterans and for the sacrifices they have made to defend our Nation and our freedom. We have an important responsibility to ensure that our veterans are provided benefits and assistance that they deserve.

Specifically, the bill authorizes that the full concurrent receipt will be phased in over a 10-year period for disabled military retirees and National Guard and Reservists who have at least 20 years of service. In each of the next 10 years, service members will receive an additional 10-percent increase, until the full concurrent receipt is reached in 2014.

The bill also expands the Combat-Related Special Compensation Program that was enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. This year's bill provides concurrent receipt to military retirees, National Guard and Reservists who have at least 20 years of service, any retiree who was awarded the Purple Heart, or any retiree with a service-connected disability incurred as a direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war.

A strong national defense depends on active duty forces, Guard and Reserve personnel, a civilian workforce, military contractors and military communities. Civilian workers in my State play a key role in ensuring that the U.S. military is the best-trained and best-equipped in the world. Over 16,000 highly skilled and dedicated workers in the International Association of Machinists Local 160, the Bremerton Metal Trades Council, and other unions and organizations in Kitsap County help ensure that our sailors have the ships and equipment they need to combat terrorism and protect our security.

Accordingly, I am concerned about provisions in the bill that would erode existing protections for civilian DOD workers. These provisions will set back our efforts to ensure a fair and effective civil service system. Specifically, these provisions could weaken collective bargaining rights at the local level, reduce due process protections for DOD workers, and scale back appeals rights along with protections against favoritism in hiring in the workplace.

Given the recent contributions of our civilian workers in the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should not be taking away long- standing protections that have helped make the U.S. military the strongest in the world. I intend to work to ensure effective congressional oversight of the implementation of these controversial personnel provisions.

I am also troubled by provisions in the bill that would weaken current environmental protections for marine mammals and other species. For several decades, the military services have demonstrated a strong commitment to natural resource conservation while fulfilling their primary missions. Puget Sound is home to many military installations and sensitive species. Based on our experience in Washington State, I believe that we can have both the highest levels of military readiness and natural resource conservation.

However, I am very troubled that the bill would weaken both the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Both of these acts currently provide significant environmental protections, while providing the military the flexibility to conduct training and other exercises. Because species recovery efforts pose unique challenges, I believe that amendments to these acts are best considered by the Commerce Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee.

On balance, however, this bill marks a major step forward in support of America's soldiers, sailors, marines and air force personnel and our Nation's security. I am pleased to vote for it.

Madam President, thank you.

I rise to join my colleagues in what has been for now some many hours a very robust debate on our judicial nominees and the process by which this body should follow their advice and consent process for the President.

I think it is clear to the other side of the aisle--and it is very interesting that the two Senators from Washington are here with the two Senators from Kansas. I can imagine that we would rather talk about many other issues, particularly high unemployment in our states and how to get America moving again, and particularly in the aerospace manufacturing area. But the bottom line is, this body does have a role on advice and consent. And since the 1940s, the Senate rules have allowed cloture votes on nominations, and we have exercised that. So that is what this debate has been about.

My colleagues have continued to point out that these numbers reflect what that debate has produced as far as our working together in our constitutional role. I do want to say, though, that there is a very worthwhile point to this debate, and I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that perhaps if we wanted to even extend this debate beyond the 30 hours, we should do so because what is really at question here is the nominees the President is putting before us and whether our country, at a critical time, is going to stand up and continue to protect the privacy rights of individuals who are being threatened, those privacy rights that exist in our Constitution and are actually being challenged by our own Government.

I believe that we are at a critical time in our country's history, and that is why it is so important for the Senate to do its job. That job is to give the American people a judiciary that represents the mainstream views of America, that protects their constitutional rights, and that does not represent a clear threat to 30 years of settled law protecting a woman's right to choose.

I believe the real issue that we should debate, because it is critical to the American people, is not the fact that we have confirmed 168 Bush judges; the issue is that this Administration has nominated 4 individuals

who Senators believe fail the test. Over 40 Senators believe that they will not act to protect our constitutional rights and to uphold our Constitution.

Each of these nominees--Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, Miguel Estrada, and William Pryor have records that indicate a determination to interpret the law not as it is but as they want it to be.

Over the next decade, Federal judges will be making critical decisions about the right to privacy and how both Government and business should respect that right to privacy. We are at the tip of the iceberg of an information age where businesses may have access to your most personal information and exploit that; where the health care industry has access to your most personal information; where Government has established a process of eavesdropping and tracking U.S. citizens without probable cause. Government has even used and developed software that can track one's use of Web sites and information on their personal computer without their consent or knowledge.

And of course, a woman's right to privacy in her choices about her body, even after 30 years of established, settled law, continues to be threatened.

I voted against these four individuals, and I will continue to oppose them. I oppose them because I believe ensuring that our judiciary is independent and committed to protecting our constitutional rights is increasing in importance and that these four cannot fill that role. It is increasing in importance because with one party in control of both the Congress and the Executive branch, and an independent and balanced judiciary is the only remaining check to ensure that our core constitutional protections are upheld.

America is a great democracy, but it is an even brighter beacon to the rest of the world because our citizens trust our judiciary to protect their rights!

Now that as a result of the Patriot Act, Government can obtain a warrant to search your home without your knowledge; can obtain a subpoena to track your use of the Internet without showing probable cause; and can obtain a secret wiretap to eavesdrop, the judiciary must serve as a check on that power.

I know some of my colleagues want to try to address some of these issues, and we will have many opportunities in the future to correct some of this overstepping by those in our Federal Government. But in a September 2003 report, the Justice Department clearly acknowledged that new powers granted under the PATRIOT Act were not simply being used to fight terrorism and espionage.

The report ``cites more than a dozen cases that are not directly related to terrorism in which Federal authorities have used expanded power [under the PATRIOT Act] to investigate individuals, initiate wiretaps and other surveillance and seize millions in tainted assets.''

The Government has already deprived two U.S. citizens of their constitutional rights and held them as enemy combatants subject to secret trial, and they can basically deprive legal immigrants protected by the Constitution from this arrest and detain them without charges.

Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that even in our intelligence reauthorization bill, there is language significantly expanding the role of the FBI to get information from car dealers, travel agents, post offices, casinos, and others without going before a Federal judge.

I know it is easy to want to believe that these issues are all about fighting terrorism and are not hurting people.

Madam President, I can tell you, I believe strongly in the war on terrorism. In my State, we have seen three important cases that have been successfully prosecuted. In 2000, agents apprehended Ahmad Ressam, an individual who had plans to blow up landmarks on the west coast. Last year, the FBI in my region was also successful in tracking down individuals who wanted to build a terrorist training camp in Oregon. The lead individual in that case, James Ujaama, will be providing information that I hope will lead to the extradition of an extremists cleric based in London. And a group of men in Portland actually pleaded guilty to traveling to Afghanistan to fight against Americans after September 11.

I firmly believe it is possible to fight the war on terrorism and prosecute terrorists and still uphold the constitutional rights of Americans. But to make sure that balance is right, the Senate must do its job to ensure that nominees to the federal court will interpret the law, and not use their personal views to rewrite it.

Americans are genuinely concerned about the erosion of their rights. Earlier this year in the Senate, we hosted a forum in which two individuals from my State, Nadin Hamoui and Mako Nakagawa, both testified about their experiences. Both described being awakened in the dead of night in their family homes by armed law enforcement who pointed guns at their parents, herded sisters and brothers into waiting vehicles and took them away for a long detention with no access to due process. The eerie part was that their stories occurred sixty years apart, in 1941 and 2001.

In Washington State, the echo of internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and the damage that it did is still very real, and hearing these two stories makes us aware of just how much our respect for liberty in this country can be overcome by fear.

It has never been more important to have a judiciary that vigorously protects our constitutional rights and particularly our rights to privacy. As a perfect example, just this past week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on whether prisoners at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to access to civilian courts to challenge their open-ended detention. An independent judiciary has the courage to review Government assertions of power, and that is what we are talking about here: whether these nominees would live up to the demands of that independent judiciary.

These are good individuals. They are earnest. They are hard working. But there have been fundamental questions raised about their records and about whether they have impartially judged their cases.

Charles Pickering, we all know, has been involved in a case where he picked up the phone and intervened with the Department of Justice in an attempt to reduce a sentence mandated by Federal guidelines.

Priscilla Owen has been repeatedly had her opinions chastised by members of her own court who have called them ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric'' and ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' The San Antonio Express News actually called the nomination--or the renomination, I should say--of these two individuals, Owen and Pickering, a ``misguided'' and ``major disappointment.''

Mr. Pryor, again, I am sure a well-meaning individual, sought to limit the Violence Against Women Act--and a fellow Republican attorney general had this to say about him:

I have great questions about whether Mr. Pryor has the

ability to be nonpartisan. I would say he was probably the

most doctrinaire and most partisan of any attorney general I

dealt with in 8 years.

Are these the individuals we want to trust with lifetime appointments to protect our constitutional rights and to uphold those rights?

Madam President, how much time have I used?

If my colleague from Washington would allow, I would like to continue.

Three minutes.

I thank my colleague. Madam President, in voting against these individuals, the Senate is doing the job the American people expected us to do.

In order to continue to have this great democracy, we must ensure we have vital checks on this administration's power. The American people are expecting their judiciary to be independent, to respect precedent, and not to prejudge the issues before them. The American people think we need a fair and balanced judiciary to counterbalance the executive and legislative branch, and we need to give them that.

These four individuals have demonstrated records of reaching beyond the law in order to reach their preferred ideological outcome. The Federal judiciary will not rise or fall on the fate of these four individuals, but in order to be a great democracy, in order to continue shining as the world's brightest beacon for individual rights, we need to have an independent judiciary, Without the important check that this Senate provides by doing our job in advising and consenting with the President on these issues, that will not be possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we just completed 30 hours of debate on judicial nominees, an obviously important debate for all Members who participated. But it is time for us to address the unemployment problem in America, and the fact that this body cannot adjourn for the year without passing an unemployment benefit extension.

Many of my colleagues will remember last year we were at this same point, when unemployment benefits were going to expire in December. We had a debate about whether that was necessary to do by the time we adjourned. I can tell you that not a lot has changed in Washington State. We still have 7.6-percent unemployment and a very high level at the national level, at 6 percent. Americans want to know whether they are going to have an extension of those benefits.

During the Bush and Clinton administrations we extended unemployment benefits for an extension of over 30 weeks during that time period because we thought it was important to make sure people were covered. During the economic downturn, unemployment benefits are a stimulus. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits it generates $2.15 as far as the economy--that is mortgage payments that can be made, health care benefits that can be extended.

While my colleagues think last year's solution of coming back in January and fixing this unemployment benefit problem was a solution, I guarantee it was not. Adjourning from here without expanding unemployment benefits is like putting a lump of coal in the stockings of Americans at Christmastime.

There were individuals in my State who, because of the failure of us acting, really did make economic choices about their future. I had a constituent who took a big chunk out of her pension program at a 30- percent penalty, basically trading her long-term economic future off for short-term returns because we hadn't given her a commitment on unemployment benefits.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1853

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to legislative session and the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment benefit insurance for displaced workers, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

I am not aware to what the Senator from Nevada is referring. I know during the Bush and Clinton administrations, with a richer package of 20 weeks after a Federal program on extension, richer than the 13 weeks that we have now, we extended that over a 30-month period of time.

So far this administration has only done that over a 22-month period of time. While we all want the economy to recover, and we all want to put Americans back to work--I guarantee these individuals would rather have a paycheck than an unemployment check--we need to do a better job making sure that we are making a commitment to unemployment benefits before we adjourn for the session.

We just spent all this time debating judicial nominees. I think it was a hardy debate on both sides. But let's give the American people and those who are suffering from unemployment the benefit of knowing that they will get this benefit extension before we adjourn.

Mr. President, today marks the 50th anniversary of Veterans Day. This historic occasion is an important opportunity for all Americans to express our gratitude to our Nation's veterans for the sacrifices they have made serving our country and defending our freedom.

My first sense of the sacrifice made by our veterans came from my family. My father volunteered to serve in the Air Force during World War II, and flew missions over Europe. I will never forget his stories of the war, of the men with whom he served, and of the dangers they faced together. Yet he knew full well the risks he would face when he joined up.

In fact, my father enlisted after learning that his brother was missing in action. Like the hundreds of thousands who fell at places like Normandy, Guadalcanal, Anzio, and Attu, and places so desolate they remain unnamed, my uncle never came home. He and his brothers in arms gave their lives to defend freedom at home and around the world.

In perhaps the most eloquent testament to the sacrifice of our Nation's veterans, President Abraham Lincoln said:

But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate--we cannot

consecrate--we cannot hallow--this ground. The brave men,

living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far

above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little

note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never

forget what they did here.

President Lincoln's stirring words are as true today as they were at Gettysburg 140 years ago this month. The ongoing deployments in the Middle East are a reminder of these sacrifices. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit American troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. I was impressed by their grit and their resolve to carry out a dangerous mission under extremely difficult circumstances.

I was also proud to join the families and neighbors who welcomed home the thousands of Washington sailors, aviators, and Marines who served in the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group. It was uplifting to see such a tremendous outpouring of support for our troops.

Sadly, not all of them will make it home. To the families and loved ones of those men and women who have given their lives, I offer my heartfelt sympathy. You have the everlasting gratitude of the State of Washington and the Nation.

I am profoundly grateful for the service of America's military personnel and for the sacrifices they have made in protecting our country and our freedoms. Although we commemorate their service on this special day each year, it

is important to remember that the men and women in uniform make sacrifices to safeguard America every day.

Their service, both in peacetime and in war, protects us all. Our responsibility to them is to ensure that they and their families are provided the recognition that they have earned and so greatly deserve. It is also our charge, as Lincoln described it, to renew our dedication to the ``great task remaining before us''--to renew our dedication to freedom and democracy. I am confident that as we a nation will continue to live up to this challenge. I hope that we can meet our obligations as citizens with the same sense of duty and honor with which America's veterans served.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I come to the floor to support the Feinstein amendment. I think Senator Feinstein has done an outstanding job of trying to communicate what is essential for markets to operate efficiently. For markets to operate efficiently, they need transparency. That is what the underlying amendment does.

It says, let's make these commodities have the same transparency as other products on the market that are sold as futures, have the ability to look at the books, and make sure that manipulation has not happened.

I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment and I send it to the desk.

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

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bingaman, Hollings, Jeffords, Dorgan, and Feingold be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate the time to discuss this issue.

Some colleagues may wonder why we are talking about energy legislation and market manipulation on the Agriculture appropriations bill. As my colleague from California pointed out in the previous amendment on derivatives legislation and market manipulation prevention, this was part of an agreement that the Western Senators worked out when we were discussing the Energy bill prior to our August recess. The fact that we were willing to move off that debate on a variety of amendments was because we had a commitment for a chance to have further discussion on important issues that impacted the economies of Western States.

That was the agreement made at that time, and today is the moment in which Senator Feinstein and I both have our opportunities to discuss what we consider very important legislation and to get the Congress on the record and make sure the Senate takes a stand against market manipulation.

Many Members know a lot has happened since the time of discussion of these issues about the energy crisis and what we should do. But we should be clear about the sequencing of things that the United States now knows and understands. The Senate knows and understands that Enron has admitted market manipulation. They have executives who have said, yes, these contracts were manipulated and prices were faulty.

We have a report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission so thick it is hard for me to hold in one hand that goes through a variety of issues in relation to market manipulation in which FERC found there was not only manipulation, but a demonstration for the need of explicit prohibitions on this kind of harmful and fraudulent market behavior.

That is exactly what this amendment tries to address. The amendment I have offered, and Senator Bingaman and others have offered, says something very basic and simple that probably many Americans, and I guarantee many Washingtonians, assumed would

already be in a Federal statute such as the Federal Power Act. The amendment simply says that manipulation or manipulated contracts under the Federal Power Act cannot be just and reasonable.

Some of my colleagues may have remembered an earlier amendment where we prescribed some solutions. This amendment has been compromised and offers no specific remedies to the legislation but is specific in saying that market manipulation, in fact, is not something that can be just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act and it is not the kind of activity that the Commission should consider as lawful activity.

Most of my colleagues would say that manipulation and fraud surely has no place in the Federal Power Act; sanctioning those activities is somehow legal. But the absence of that prohibition in the Federal Power Act is leaving some doubt in people's minds that, in fact, manipulation is unlawful.

I bring that up because Washingtonians--as Ohio, Indiana, Nevada, California, Utah--have been suffering from high energy costs related to these manipulations of Enron contracts. Not only will they be stuck with paying those Enron contracts over a long period of time, but my State, the State of Washington, had utilities as much as a 50-percent rate increase because of Enron's contracts, and we will be stuck with those contracts over 5 years.

While Ken Lay remains uncharged, or at least not paying any dues for the crime he perpetrated, and he keeps the millions of dollars of money that he has gotten from Enron, my ratepayers in Washington State for the next 5 years will end up paying the high prices of those manipulated contracts. Not only will we end up paying the high prices of those manipulated contracts, but the utilities in my State and other States--Nevada, California, Oregon, some of the other Midwest States I mentioned--have tried to basically deal with Enron. They have been basically sued by the company. So not only is my ratepayer stuck with paying those high utility bills, they are actually trying to fight the legal battle against Enron, which is turning around and suing them.

My amendment does something very simple today. It basically says in the Federal Power Act that for the prospective issue of making sure it is clear to people throughout the country that the Senate does not tolerate market manipulation.

I have to say we have done great work on this issue as it relates to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and as it relates to making sure that accounting practices have been changed. But nowhere have we been specific in saying that market manipulation is an unlawful practice and cannot be just and reasonable under the Power Act. That is simply what we are trying to say today.

Why is that needed? I have a letter I circulated to my colleagues from one of the newest nominees to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a Republican nominee who spent many hours in the legislative branch working under Energy Secretary Abraham and spent time in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to whom I posed this question as a nominee before FERC because I wanted to understand where FERC nominees were going in the future.

Mr. Kelliher responded exactly where I think the input needs to be to the Senate. He said:

I agree with much of what you have said. I agree that the

markets subject to manipulation cannot operate properly and

there is an urgent need to proscribe manipulation of

electricity markets.

He further states:

You have correctly noted that there is no express

prohibition of market manipulation in the Federal Power Act

and have proposed legislation to establish that prohibition.

This is a critical point. The Federal Regulatory Commission

only has the tools Congress chooses to give it, and Congress

has never given the Commission express authority to prohibit

market manipulation. I believe the time has come for Congress

to take that step.

That is an exact quote from a letter by the FERC nominee Joseph Kelliher from the administration saying, ``You want me to be a FERC commissioner? I am telling you exactly what I think about the FERC rules. And I am telling you we need the language that is in this amendment.''

I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I think the Kelliher letter and the report we have seen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on price manipulation in western markets is the evidence we need. We have all admitted this manipulation has taken place. What is not clear to the American public is if we plan to do anything about it or if we plan to prohibit it in the future.

I think we need to be clear. The language I have offered in this amendment, as I said, is very simple and straightforward. It is that way because we want to make sure the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not misinterpret the intent of Congress, that Congress needs to say manipulating prices cannot be just and reasonable or in the public interest, and their job is to basically protect electric ratepayers from these kinds of manipulation.

I am not going to continue to take up the time of my colleagues who have heard about this amendment and have had an opportunity to review it. I urge them, as part of our further understanding of where the Energy bill is, that it is being set aside. This is the opportunity before us to make sure we

take a stand against market manipulation and we need to make it clear to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which seems to be unclear about what authority they currently have, and to make it explicit that market manipulation cannot be tolerated.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have not taken up a significant amount of time because I think Members have been educated on this issue, so I would suggest we just go ahead and vote on the issue and move ahead.

Mr. President, I am sure there are Members who, if they had the time, would come and speak, but I think to make this process move as smoothly as possible, I see no need to continue to wait for Members of the Energy Committee to show up. If Members are here who want to speak on behalf of the amendment, one way or another----

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I call up the Cantwell amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is one more addition to the great underlying Fair Credit Reporting Act that would establish a process where business records can be accessed by consumers whose identities have been stolen. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, my colleague from Wyoming and I tried to accommodate Members who were here in the last few minutes, trying to get several amendments adopted.

I want to spend a few minutes going into more detail about the Cantwell-Enzi Restore Your Good Name Act that has been incorporated into the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

I would first like to thank the chairman and ranking members of the committee for their strong support of this underlying bill that has been incorporated, along with the last amendment that we just voted on by voice a few minutes ago, dealing with business records.

It was roughly 2 years ago that the chairman of the Banking Committee and I spoke at a national platform for the attorneys general of America to address the issue of privacy and some of the biggest challenges to privacy at that time. We both made known our view that this country needed stronger legislation in the area of identity theft.

I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their strong step forward, a really critical step forward, to protect Americans from what is the fastest growing crime in America--identity theft.

Unfortunately, even though the Senate passed the Cantwell-Enzi legislation last year, the House failed to act on it and the number of victims has continued to grow. In fact, 9 million Americans have been the victims of identity theft. This underlying bill incorporates some of those good ideas that my colleague from Wyoming worked so hard on in the Banking Committee and that we worked through the Judiciary Committee to pass. I certainly commend my colleague, Senator Enzi, for his dedication to this issue. Consumers in America are going to be more protected because of his efforts. It has been a pleasure to work with him on these challenging issues, to make sure those protections are put in place.

The underlying bill that we have passed changes the framework by which consumers can now restore their good name and protect their identity. It does so, first and foremost, as Senator Enzi and I suggested, by formulating an affidavit process. So many people in America are victims of identity theft. But I can tell you this: it is not a crime for which you can call 911 and get immediate response. The biggest problem, once you are a victim of identity theft, is proving that you are in fact the person whose identity has been stolen.

I like to say that, in the case of the perpetrator who steals your television set right out of your living room, chances are that he is somewhere in the neighborhood. But the crime of identity theft could involve someone anywhere in the country, or for that matter, outside the United States, working with a ring.

So part of what we are trying to do, first and foremost, is to give victims and law enforcement tools to help victims reclaim their identity. The affidavit process that now must be accepted by business owners and credit agencies as proof that you are a victim of identity theft is the first step in making sure that your credit record is corrected and perpetrators are prevented from continuing to ruin your credit.

Second, the credit provisions that Senator Enzi was successful in getting added in committee represent a tremendous step in solving the problem that so many Americans face when their identity is stolen--that the perpetrators continue to pose as them, running up large credit bills.

In the case of a constituent I recently met in Washington State, the perpetrator who stole the constituent's license succeeded in buying five different vehicles. My constituent has continued to be a subject of investigation by law enforcement as she has tried to prove that it was, in fact, her identity that was stolen, that she was the victim. So a critical part of this legislation is the fact that individuals will be allowed to go to a credit agency and get that information blocked so that their good name is restored.

The amendment that we just adopted deals with another aspect of this problem, which is getting access to business records. Law enforcement in the State of Washington have been very successful at dealing with crimes of identity theft because identity thieves are often criminals who are involved in larger activities. There is a high correlation between people who are involved in identity theft--who use that stolen identity to get access to cash and resources in the State of Washington--and people who are involved with methamphetamine production. These criminals are involved in both drug activity and identity theft.

With this amendment, police can now get access to business records. Any victim, or law enforcement official acting on behalf of the victim, will have access to business records within 20 days after the victim provides identification, an affidavit and a police report to the business. This gives consumers a real tool to correct the harm caused them by this crime. This is a very fundamental part of this bill.

The last aspect of the identity theft bill that is part of the amendment we just agreed to deals with the statute of limitations. In the 2001 Supreme Court case of TRW v. Andrews, the Court ruled that the statute of limitations in these cases runs for 2 years from the time the crime is committed. But what we have found is that some victims of identity theft don't even realize they are victims until a year or 2 years after the identity theft has occurred. The statute of limitations therefore impacted the ability of victims to get justice. The underlying amendment we just agreed to extends the statute of limitations to give victims of identity theft 5 years from the time the crime was committed.

This underlying bill with the amendment we just agreed to represents a critical first step in dealing with one of the most important issues I think we will deal with in this information age, which is the issue of privacy. While this body has tried to deal with this issue in myriad ways by protecting the financial and health records of individuals, and by making sure that either opt-in or opt-out legislation have been cleared with consumers, I think we have much more work to do in the area of privacy. But you can be sure the Fair Credit Reporting Act before us today and the Cantwell-Enzi amendment and language adopted with it take a very positive step in dealing with one of the biggest privacy threats to Americans today--identity theft.

With these tools, law enforcement and individual consumers whose identities have been stolen will have the tools to make the process of reporting and resolving identity theft go smoother. While some may have said businesses would oppose the underlying amendment, or some of the features of the Cantwell-Enzi amendment, businesses have seen record losses of $22

billion a year from identity theft, and they have joined in this effort to make sure we pass strong national legislation.

I again thank Senator Sarbanes and Senator Shelby for their hard work, and certainly Senator Enzi for his effort and his stewardship in making sure we have good legislation in the process that can go on to passage and that will better protect consumers in America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, while I plan to vote for this bill because it funds a host of programs critical to our Nation and my home State of Washington, I rise today to voice my grave concerns over a provision that would prevent the Department of Interior from conducting a full accounting of Individual Indian Trust accounts.

On September 25, 2003, in the case of Cobell v. Norton, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the Department of Interior to account for all individual Indian assets held in trust since 1887. This accounting is critical if our government is to meet its federal trust responsibility and reach an equitable settlement over the funds owed to over 300,000 American Indians.

My concerns over this funding limitation are threefold. First, it subverts both the legislative and committee process. Last week, Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Campbell and Vice-Chairman Inouye introduced legislation that provided a blueprint on how we can move forward on this issue. As a member of the Indian Affairs Committee, I feel strongly that the committee of jurisdiction should deal with this issue so that we can hear from the multiple stakeholders through the traditional hearing and legislative drafting process.

Secondly, by forestalling a court order, I am very concerned that this rider may violate the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. With the insertion of this provision, Congress is interfering with the ability of a federal agency to comply with the ruling of a Federal judge. It could also be considered a takings, since Indian account holders are being denied redress to secure just compensation for the use of their property.

Finally, this provision will delay efforts to settle this lawsuit because it will remove any incentive the Interior Department might have to participate in good faith negotiations. I hope that its inclusion will at least spur the parties to try and reach a mutually acceptable settlement within the year that this rider will be in effect.

After a century of mismanaging Indian assets, it's time for our Nation to keep our promises. While I share the concerns of my colleagues over the potential expense of the accounting process, I believe that the cost further supports the need for a negotiated settlement. That is why I am committed to working with the all affected stakeholders as well as the chairman and vice-chairman of the Indian Affairs committee to resolve this matter once and for all.

Mr. President, Federal judges serve lifetime terms, and are responsible for interpreting our Constitution, and our laws, in ways that have real implications for the rights of regular Americans. Last year I joined my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee in voting not to report the nomination elevating Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering to the Circuit Court of Appeals to the Senate floor. I stand by that vote. I continue to have very real concerns about Judge Pickering's ability to be a fair and neutral Court of Appeals judge.

In evaluating judicial nominations, among the factors I consider are whether the nominee demonstrates the highest level of professional ethics and integrity, and has the ability to distinguish between personal beliefs and interpreting the law. Unfortunately, I believe Judge Pickering falls short in meeting these criteria. Judge Pickering is an honorable person, but he is simply the wrong person to fill this very important position.

Like my colleagues, I am troubled by Judge Pickering's handling of the case of United States v. Swan, where a white defendant was tried for burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple. Judge Pickering had multiple ex parte conversations with prosecutors and Justice Department officials in an effort to reduce the sentence of Mr. Swan. In doing so, Judge Pickering seems to have lost sight of the ethical limitations on his actions, and the extent to which he was failing to maintain judicial independence. As Brenda Polkey, the victim of the cross burning, said, her ``faith in the justice system was destroyed'' by Pickering's efforts to reduce Mr. Swan's sentence. In every aspect of government we need to work hard and keep faith with the public.

This case indicates how deeply held Judge Pickering's views are, and how far he will go to arrive at an outcome he believes to be correct. The difficulty that he has in keeping his personal views out of his judicial decisionmaking are obvious, not only in this case, but in several opinions in which he goes beyond the facts of the case to state his belief of what the law ought to be. Judge Pickering's efforts to solicit letters of support from lawyers appearing before him in direct violation of the canons of judicial ethics is another example of his lack of understanding and adherence to the ethical guidelines that are critical to maintaining the independence and integrity of the Federal judiciary.

Because of this troubling record of not following precedent, and of overstepping ethical bounds to achieve a particular outcome, I asked Judge Pickering questions at his hearing that focused on the right to privacy. I asked Judge Pickering about privacy as it pertains to consumers' rights, specifically medical and financial records, as it pertains to an individual's right to privacy in the context of government surveillance, and with regard to a woman's right to make personal decisions about her body. In response, he declined to state whether he believed that any right to privacy was conferred by our Constitution.

While my concern about how Judge Pickering would rule on cases of fundamental privacy rights is not the only factor in my decision to oppose his elevation to the Circuit Court, it is one I believe is important.

The Fifth Circuit covers three States--Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi--that have passed more anti-choice legislation restricting a woman's right to make personal choices about her own body than any other States. In fact, all three States continue to have unconstitutional and unenforceable laws on their books prohibiting a woman from having an abortion, because the legislature in each of these States will not repeal the laws. This is the context against which we must consider the President's nomination of Judge Pickering.

While Judge Pickering has repeatedly pledged to restrain his personal ideological views and follow the precedent of the Supreme Court, given the unique role that the Fifth Circuit plays in protecting not only the constitutional right to privacy enunciated in Roe and affirmed in Casey, but also in protecting women's access to abortion providers in the States with the Fifth

Circuit, I am concerned about Judge Pickering's willingness to say where in the Constitution privacy is protected and his willingness to follow the law.

Judge Pickering's actions on the bench reveal a lack of understanding of the requirements of judicial ethics and a failure to meet the very highest standards of the legal profession. Judge Pickering has exhibited a lack of ability to distinguish his personal believes from judging the issues before the court, and I therefore cannot support his elevation to the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Climate Stewardship Act. I hope the Senate will seize the historic opportunity before it today and vote to begin seriously dealing with this worldwide threat.

Unfortunately, I am afraid Congress is not very good at passing laws that will only benefit future generations, especially when there might be a cost--no matter how small--for our constituents today. But I hope that this vote will be different and that my colleagues will join me in passing this sensible legislation to prevent a costly, and potentially catastrophic, rise in global temperatures.

As Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and others have already articulated, the scientific conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to an accelerated rate of climate warming is beyond debate. Thousands of climate scientists convened under the United Nations and our own National Academy of Sciences have stated definitively that human activities--primarily the burning of fossil fuels--have contributed and will continue to contribute to rising atmospheric temperatures. I am not an atmospheric scientist, and I don't believe any of my colleagues are, so I hope everyone here will defer to their expertise on this matter.

Climate change is an existing and scientifically supported phenomenon which human beings have a responsibility to mitigate. And since the U.S. has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world and one of the highest emissions rates per dollar of gross domestic product, we have a particular duty to lead the world on this critical issue.

Even the Bush administration, whose sincerity in dealing with this issue is suspect, acknowledges the reality that human activities cause climate change. Last year, in its United States Climate Report for 2002, the administration outlined a vast array of consequences climate change would inflict across our country. I would like to highlight some of the ``likely'' effects mentioned in that report that would have a particularly harsh impact on my home State of Washington.

The resulting changes in the amount and timing of runoff

are very likely to have significant implications in some

basins for water management, flood protection, power

production, water quality, and the availability of water

resources for irrigations, hydro power, communities,

industry, and the sustainability of natural habitats and

species.

Reduced snow-pack is very likely to alter the timing and

amount of water supplies, potentially exacerbating water

shortages, particularly through the western United States.

The projected increase in the current rate of sea level

rise is very likely to exacerbate the nationwide loss of

existing coastal wetlands.

Habitats of alpine and sub-alpine spruce-fir in the

contiguous United States are likely to be reduced and,

possibly in the long-term, eliminated as their mountain

habitats warm.

Rising temperatures are likely to force out some cold-water

fish species (such as salmon and trout) that are already near

the threshold of their viable habitat . . . .

These conditions would also increase stresses on sea

grasses, fish, shellfish, and other organisms living in

lakes, streams, and oceans.

The non-profit group Environmental Defense compiled research that shows that the winter snow pack in the Cascades could decline by 50 percent within 50 years. A reduction even a fraction of that size would have a devastating impact on runoff that is vital for hydropower, agriculture, salmon habitat, and drinking water supplies. And I am sure many of my Western colleagues would be similarly alarmed by potential reductions in their scarce water resources.

Just the damages from decreased runoff would cost my State billions of dollars annually, dwarfing even the most pessimistic costs that some opponents contend may result from this bill. But besides the costs this legislation can help avoid, I think it is critical that we consider the tremendous benefits this bill would initiate.

Today, we know that the tired mantra that ``protecting the environment costs jobs'' is no longer true. In fact, the market-based mechanisms used in this bill would unleash unprecedented productivity and efficiency gains in our energy sector, as well as catalyze countless new environmental technology industries. That translates into many new high paying engineering and manufacturing jobs and tremendous new export opportunities.

A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy, which included contributions from Washington State's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, forecast significant job growth for jobs in a range of emerging ``green'' industries, such as wind power, biomass energy production, and other energy efficiency specialties.

I am proud that my State hosts one of the largest wind farms in the United States. I visited our Stateline project and saw first hand one of the many solutions that the market will find to meet the goals of this legislation.

These conclusions were confirmed by a 2001 study carried out in collaboration with public and private partners in the Pacific Northwest that found that the global market for clean energy technologies is expected to reach $180 billion a year--about twice the size

of the passenger and cargo aircraft industries--within the next two decades. Already, in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia this sector is a $1.4 billion per year industry.

Despite the potential of these new markets, some of my colleagues have argued that the costs of addressing this problem are too high, because they believe this bill might raise energy costs. While that is highly disputable, I am curious if opponents of this measure also support lifting controls on other pollutants? I'm sure we could make coal-generated electricity even cheaper if we did not require pollution scrubbers. We could allow millions of tons of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and other toxins to flood our nation's air in the name of cheap energy. But of course we wouldn't do that because we know that true costs of such a policy--whether it be the health of our children, the effects of acid rain, or even the visibility at our national parks--would far outweigh any short-term financial gains we may achieve by removing emission controls.

The same principle is true of climate change. We may save some money now by ignoring this problem, but entire industries like timber and fishing--key sectors of my State's economy--would be dramatically impacted by climate change. There is no way to deny that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are pollutants and need to be monitored and controlled as such.

As I have listened to this historic debate, I have been frustrated by the dueling charts and reports which have been used to support one position or another. While I, along with many of our Nation's Governors and world leaders, believe that the scientific evidence is indisputable, there may be another important way to view this issue: as an insurance policy.

I am confident that even the most vocal opponents of this bill would be reluctant to say that there is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of climate scientists are right about this issue and that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Perhaps the climate skeptics would change their position if they realized that this legislation is really an insurance policy for our children, one that guarantees they will be able to enjoy the same natural world that benefits us today.

I believe that is how the American people instinctively understand this issue. This is borne out by a recent nationwide survey that showed that three-quarters of Americans support the McCain-Lieberman climate change bill and two-thirds agree that we can control greenhouse gases without harming our economy.

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. Like the threat of terrorism, climate change is too alarming and disturbing a problem to ignore.

The risks of ignoring this problem heavily outweigh the benefits of preserving the status quo. Allowing rapid changes in the temperature of the earth's surface and shifts in worldwide weather patterns that result from global warming would be devastating to the economies of my state, this nation, and the world. Let's make sure this problem gets the serious action it deserves. I urge my colleagues to support this critical bill.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2038, as modified.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I know the hour is already late for some Members. I believe we have had much time to discuss this legislation, but I do believe there are a couple of important amendments that are still yet to come that raise issue that are important for Members to understand. I am concerned that the underlying bill amends the National Environmental Policy Act, a benchmark statute that has been on the books since 1969. Because this is an important act, I believe I must stand up and offer this amendment.

I take great pride in the fact that I sit at the desk of Senator Henry M. Jackson who served as chairman of the Senate Interior Committee for many years. He was the prime sponsor and mover behind the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of national legislation that sets the tone for how our environment should be treated as we review the work of Federal agencies' actions.

I know my colleagues from California, Oregon, and Idaho are trying to move forward on hazardous fuel reduction projects. I am asking them to consider the impact of the major changes that bill proposes to make to the National Environmental Policy Act process with respect to hazardous fuels reduction projects. In addition, the bill before us leaves the door open for further changes in the National Environmental Policy Act in other areas besides hazardous fuel reduction, and that concerns me.

First of all, I really do believe that at the heart of this problem associated with hazardous fuels reduction is funding. It was the case in 2000 when we had a lot of fires throughout the West, and the Western Governors Association came together and said: Let's fund a hazardous fuel reduction account. The problem with the current practice is that Congress provides money for hazardous fuels reduction projects, but the funds are taken out of these accounts and used to fight fires, and the projects are not funded. In addition, we are not providing enough funding for hazardous fuels reduction projects.

I estimate that we need approximately $1 billion a year to do adequate hazardous fuel reduction in wildland-urban interface areas. Unfortunately,

the President's budget request for this fiscal year included approximately $300 million for this purpose.

I think all of my colleagues can agree that we have to come together to authorize and appropriate adequate resources to prevent fires ahead of time. We should not short-fund hazardous fuels reduction and take those limited resources to fight fires when they happen.

I applaud my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, particularly the Senator from Oregon, and for putting this legislation forward.

My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are also trying to bring up the fact that they think it is important that hazardous fuel reduction projects proceed smoothly. That is why I would like to point out to my colleagues that the Forest Service does provide categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels projects. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, sixty percent of projects in 2001-2002 received categorical exclusions. These projects did not require the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment.

A second group, about 34 percent, has been approved via environmental assessments, which are much shorter than an EIS.

Only 6 percent of the projects have had to go through the full EIS process.

These figures are outlined in an October 2003 GAO report that clearly shows that the National Environmental Policy Act has not held up progress on hazardous fuel reduction. What has held up progress is the failure to provide adequate funding in this area.

So I ask my colleagues why should we change the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of Federal legislation that has protected the environment since 1969?

Some of my colleagues have suggested that the law's requirement that the Forest Service consider alternatives has delayed hazardous fuels reduction projects. However, numerous court cases have held that in some circumstances two or three action alternatives are adequate to comply with NEPA. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that in the cases of Friends of Southeast's Future v. U.S. Forest Service and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, that two or three alternatives, in addition to the preferred alternative and the no- action alternative, will satisfy NEPA.

The case law does not say that 30 different alternatives must be considered, or 10 different alternatives, or 7 different alternatives, or 6 different alternatives, or even five different alternatives. It is saying that in certain cases, two or three can be adequate.

I think my colleagues are well intentioned. However, I have real concerns about the proposed change to the National Environmental Policy Act, that has been on the books since 1969. The bill before us would limit the number of alternatives to: one, the proposal for hazardous fuel reduction; two, the alternative of doing nothing or; a third alternative, which is the only real alternative. In the case of a proposed fuel reduction project in the Northwest, someone could propose taking no action because we do not have to do that hazardous fuel reduction, and then someone else says, maybe here is an alternative.

Well, my concern is that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If only 6 percent of these cases really have not had the categorical exemption of not having to go through an EIS and only three percent are ending up in court, then the National Environmental Policy Act is not the cause of the holdup.

Washington State has been the subject of many forest fires and many tragedies, most recently the tragic Thirty-mile fire in 2001. Much of eastern Washington is under condition class 2 and condition class 3, and, therefore, could be subject to this bill. My concern is that if a city wants to propose an alternative, it might be precluded from offering an alternative that would address concerns over the impact of the hazardous fuels reduction project on water quality.

So I would say to my colleagues, let us fund the hazardous fuels reduction account. Let us move forward to promote healthier forests. If we truly see that the National Environmental Policy Act delays project, even though only 3 percent of hazardous fuels projects have ever reached court, then let us come back and change the law.

I am truly concerned with the proposed change to the National Environmental Policy Act. What will stop other legislative proposals from coming to the Senate floor to change the National Environmental Policy Act in other areas? Are Members who are going to support this underlying language ready to stop at hazardous fuel reduction, or do they want to change NEPA all across the board?

For example, say one's community has to consider a proposal to build a new gas pipeline. Pipeline safety has been an issue of great controversy in the State of Washington, which had a pipeline explosion several years ago that killed several people. What if only one alternative was considered for the route of a gas pipeline going through one's State? I want to make sure the current law says reasonable alternatives are considered so that no community, no citizen, no organization with standing is left out in the cold.

That is what Henry M. Jackson was thinking about when he wrote the National Environmental Protection Act. He thought about making sure the public had a chance to participate in the process. He wanted to make sure they had the ability to have the issues that they wanted to be addressed and considered.

The Forest Roads Working Group, an organization that has operated with the blessing of the Bush Administration, along with other organizations, has raised similar concerns. These organizations have expressed their support for the public to have a say and to retain the ability to participate in the decision-making process.

I know my colleagues want to move forward on a plan that will make all communities more secure, that will make our forests more healthy. I applaud them for that, but I also hope Members will stop and think about the statistics that GAO has outlined. This dispute is not fundamentally about the EIS process and the number of alternatives. The Forest Service has the ability to proceed via categorical exemptions. It can develop an EIS when it needs to analyze complex proposals. If we start changing NEPA with respect to hazardous fuels projects, where are we going to stop?

I urge my colleagues not to change legislation that has been one of the landmark pieces of environmental law that this body saw fit to pass in 1969, but rather to keep that legislation intact and fund hazardous fuel reductions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senators Cochran and Harkin, for including in the managers' package an amendment I filed on the issue of wildland firefighter safety. My heart goes out to my colleagues from California and the people they represent. In Washington, we are well acquainted with catastrophic wildfires and the threat they pose to local communities. Our thoughts are with the people of California, as well as with the families of the firefighters on the job--including crews from my State who are on their way south to join in the effort.

The men and women who fight fires on our public lands serve our Nation bravely. Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost their lives in the line of duty. Before the California fires, I believe the toll was 26 individuals this year alone.

And this morning, we were faced with the news of the first firefighter death

from the California blazes--an 11-year veteran named Steven Rucker, who perished while trying to save a home. He leaves behind a wife and two children.

As I have read the press accounts and listened to the stories my colleagues have told about the loss of life in California over these past few days, I cannot help but recall a recent tragedy in my State of Washington. 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.'' We know that firefighting is a dangerous job. But despite its inherent danger, we have a responsibility to ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile Fire ever happens 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 for a parent than 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 even based on what I have heard when I have visited with firefighters over the past two years, I do believe the courage of those families to stand up and demand change has had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who today are battling blazes as wildland firefighters. Yet, I believe there is more that Congress can do to express our commitment. Today I offer a modest amendment that will take a few more steps in that direction.

My amendment does three simple things.

First, it 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 monies.

Second, it will require the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and training programs. I assure my colleagues who have not spent time dwelling on this issue, that the maze of policy statements, management directives and curricula changes associated with Federal firefighter training is dizzying and complicated.

The agencies have a responsibility to continually revise their policies in the face of new science and lessons learned on the fire line. Meanwhile, this body 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, it 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.

This is actually quite a complex issue about which many of us are just beginning to learn. With the severity of fire seasons throughout the country over the past 2 years--and notwithstanding the Clinton administration's efforts to hire a significant number of new firefighters as part of the National Fire Plan--the number of private contract crews hired by the agencies to help with fire suppression has tripled since 1998. According to Oregon Department of Forestry estimates, the number of contract crews at work has grown from 88 to 1998 to 300 this year, with 95 percent based in the Pacific Northwest. In general, these contract crews have grown up in former timber communities and provide important jobs, especially given the fact the agencies themselves do not at this juncture have the resources to fight the fires entirely on their own. And many of these contractors have been in operation for a decade or more and boast stellar safety records.

Nevertheless, as the number of--and need for--contractors has grown, there are more and more tales of unscrupulous employers that take advantage of workers and skirt training and safety requirements. This is a growing concern for U.S. Forest Service employees and state officials. This summer, the Seattle Times wrote a detailed feature on the issue, quoting internal Forest Service memos as well as evidence from the field.

Among the contractor practices cited in the article: Breaking safety rules and failing to warn other crews on the fire line; falsifying or forging firefighting credentials and ignoring training requirements; hiring illegal immigrants that cannot understand fire line commands-- and committing various labor abuses; and rotating a single crew from fire to fire for 50 straight days--while Federal firefighters are not allowed to work more than 14 or 21 days in a row.

The article quoted from a November 2002 memo written by Joseph Ferguson, a deputy incident commander for the Forest Service: ``If we don't improve the quality and accountability of this program, we are going to kill a bunch of firefighters . . . Although there were two or three good to excellent crews on each fire, that was offset by 20 to 30 that were hardly worth having,'' Ferguson added. ``It was apparent that training for most of these crews had been done poorly or not at all.''

Paul Broyles, who heads a safety committee for the National Interagency Fire Center added that private crews he has seen have varied from ``fantastic to a he[ck] of a lot less than good and some were real safety concerns.'' He noted that while state government and feds were trying to crack down on violations associated with documentation, ``the assumption is, where there's one problem, there's probably more.''

This provision 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 understand that the Federal and State agencies are already attempting to push contractors in this direction, and this provision will bolster that momentum.

I had also hoped to include in this amendment a provision that would direct the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of the impacts of the President's outscourcing initiative on wildland firefighter safety. Unfortunately, that provision was opposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Now, let me be clear. I oppose the Bush administration's outsourcing initiative. And if I had my way, I would simply declare that this initiative would not apply to the firefighting agencies. However, at the very least, I hope my colleagues will agree that we should take a close look at how outsourcing will affect the ability of

our Federal agencies to do their job when it comes to fighting wildfires and their ability to do it safely.

According to the Forest Service Council, which represents 20,000 Forest Service employees across the Nation, some 40 percent of these workers serve dual functions.

Likened to the Reserve or National Guard, they call it the ``militia'' approach--where qualified employees that perform other jobs for much of the year are dispatched as ``first responders'' on wildland fires.

From a military perspective in Iraq, we have seen the importance of the National Guard and Reserve in supporting our military efforts. No one here in Congress would contemplate outsourcing the Guard and Reserve.

I hope my colleagues would recognize that it is completely unclear how the outsourcing initiative, with its emphasis on contracting out certain types of jobs, would impact the need for Forest Service employees to perform these collateral duties. I am concerned that the outsourcing initiative will seriously erode the agencies' capacity to fight fires--just as the sponsors of this bill argue these fires are becoming most intense.

Likewise, I have serious concerns that it will disrupt the chain of command on the fire line, especially in instances in which the Forest Service could lose some of its most experienced firefighters as a result of outsourcing. These are my concerns.

While I understand that there were objections on the other side of the aisle to including the GAO study provision--and we have thus removed it from this amendment, to move forward on the other important provisions--I guess we are lucky that such a study does not actually require legislation. I plan to work with a number of my colleagues to request just such a report form the GAO, because I believe it is important we thoroughly understand the way outsourcing would impact Federal agencies' ability to fight fires and fight them safely.

And so I hope my colleagues will support this simple amendment. 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 amendment will provide this body with the additional tools it needs to do the job. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment.

administrative review process

Mr. President, tomorrow, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum will mark its 10th anniversary. More than 6,000 Holocaust survivors and family members will visit the museum this weekend to help commemorate the museum's important contributions. Together, these men and women comprise a living legacy of the Shoah. By sharing their memories, these courageous survivors can help ensure that such evil is never again perpetrated against any people, anywhere.

America is a land of immigrants, and our history demonstrates that we are stronger because of our diversity, not in spite of it. But we can only live up to the promise of our diversity if we recognize the inherent rights and freedom of all human life. One of the most powerful ways we can remind each other and our children about the importance of this fundamental principle is to ensure that the Holocaust is never forgotten.

For that reason it is fitting that the Holocaust Memorial Museum is located on the National Mall. Visitors to this cherished landmark can see the Declaration of Independence, the Wright brothers' glider, and some of America's most treasured art; all of them vivid reminders about the capacity of the human spirit and the promise of mankind. Yet it is just as important to teach young people and remind adults about one of the darkest chapters of human history. Although the Holocaust was a terrible tragedy that stained all humanity, it must never be hidden from view.

The Holocaust Memorial Museum plays a special role in teaching our children and grandchildren about this dark chapter in world history. This haunting permanent memorial will ensure that future generations will learn about this tragedy.

Survivors and liberators of the Holocaust have a unique opportunity to share the stories of this awful period. I thank them for having the courage and dignity to survive the horrors of the Holocaust, and for having the bravery to share their experiences with others so that it may never happen again. Their contributions will help all of us build a better America and a better world.

Mr. President, I am sure there is no way I can convey in these minutes all of the important information that needs to be conveyed about this issue. I will highlight a few things.

This debate started in 2001 and still goes strong today. The testament of the many Members who were here on the floor is that we are trying to move ahead and move ahead with what is a very needed product.

I thank my colleague from Washington and my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, who is also interested in this issue.

The bottom line is we all know if we could buy these planes now and have the resources, we would do that. We all know buying the planes sooner makes them cheaper. The issue we have been struggling with is, where are the resources and how do we make this come together in a timely fashion to meet the need.

Senator McCain has made all of us stop and think about this issue in ways we might not have thought. I don't think any Member wanted to or should have excluded the authorizing committee from playing its normal role and capacity of reviewing these projects. The fact of the matter is we now are 2 years into this process and we have to figure out a way to move forward. The Armed Services Committee is trying to do just that, trying to say 100 planes should be made through either a lease or procurement process as part of a contract and that we need to move forward soon on the start of that lease contract.

We are still a few days away from finally getting a product. I thank Senators Warner and Levin for taking this step in the process outlined in 2001 of the authorizing committee giving its feedback on this original proposal by Congress to have a pilot lease program.