Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I could respond to a couple of things my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said because this is an important debate. If there are people who want to continue to debate the farm proposal we are going to be voting on this morning, I will be happy to yield the floor. But not seeing that, I am happy to continue the discussion on the Energy bill. Both Senators from New Mexico have played an incredible leadership role in energy, and the 2005 Energy bill was a bipartisan effort. I certainly know what it is like to take half a loaf. That was not the bill I would have written myself, but I voted for that legislation. I think it started us on a course of making investments in renewable energy technology that was beneficial. In particular I happen to disagree that the 2005 tax provisions, as they related to more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, have been a big benefit for us. We even had an executive of an oil company say they did not think they were going to have much impact. So now consumers in my State are paying over $3 at the pump, and home heating oil prices are up 35 percent. So I do not think those subsidies to the oil industry have had any kind of magnificent impact that my colleague from Texas was saying. What we do know is the investment we started in the 2005 bill in renewable energy is having an incredible impact. The question is whether we are going to give predictability to that industry. I would hate to think this is a vote--whether it is on this bill or any future bill; and this Senator would certainly take these provisions and put them on lots of different vehicles. It does not have to always be in this precise fashion--but the fact is, this bill and these tax incentives will generate over 50,000 megawatts of new, clean energy supply and efficiencies. That is right, it does create new generation. Mr. President, 50,000 megawatts, in case anybody wants to know, is the same amount of electricity that is used in 26 States today. So the question is whether we are going to have a 1-year extension--that is, until 2008--for renewable energy, or whether we are going to give them 2, 3, 4 years of predictability so we can get that generation, as I said, that will produce enough electricity for 26 States out of renewable and efficiency generation, instead of continuing to use those tax subsidies for the oil industry that, even by their own account, they say are not having a significant impact. So I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have heard what the President has said. We have heard all along that he thinks these particular provisions are raising revenues on one industry. The President included in his own budget a broader reduction in the subsidies that we had previously passed, and nowhere did he call that raising revenue. So by his own account, it is hypocrisy to now start claiming these are somehow different. What we need is to pass this Energy bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion on many of the provisions that are in this legislation that will diversify us off of fossil fuel and get us into renewables and biofuels, so we can lower the price at the pump for consumers. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I too rise in support of the cloture motion this morning and ask my colleagues if we are going to pass the Energy bill before the end of this year. I know the American consumer has gotten a wake-up call because they are paying higher gas prices at the pump. But the question is whether Congress and the White House have gotten the same wake-up call. Fortunately, thanks to the hard work of Members on both sides of the aisle and many staff members we are within grasp of a very important solution. I am not even going to spend my time this morning talking about the important details of this bill because many of my colleagues, including the chairman of the Energy Committee, has extolled its virtues. Perhaps, if I have a minute at the end, I might elaborate on some of these. But it is time to get to the heart of the matter. And that is, the American people need serious relief from a future of high oil prices by making a transition this legislation would provide. That is we need to make sure we have an energy package that starts investing more aggressively in renewable energy and will actually get us competition at the gas pump and on our electricity grid. I know some are saying the tax title in this bill must go. And some have even been bold enough to say that it's an increase in taxes. That is an interesting position because these are really tax subsidies for the oil industry. They are not a tax increase on consumers. When we passed similar tax provisions in the 2005 energy bill no one on the other side called that a tax increase. In fact, when the President put broader subsidies in his budget this year, reducing some of the same subsidies, it was called a modification. So do not tell us now that cancelling a subsidy for the oil industry is somehow raising taxes on consumers. What we are really doing is continuing to make consumers pay more at the gas pump because we are not giving them true competition. At the heart of the matter is the fact that of the energy subsidies and investments that our country makes--that is, using American tax dollars to invest in energy strategies that will help our country--right now 75 percent of them is going to the fossil fuel industry. Only about 15 percent is going to clean energy. Now, I ask my colleagues, when the United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, is it smart to continue to have the 75 percent investment in fossil fuels? I would say that we should pass this legislation and make more investments in renewable and energy efficiency. If someone says that somehow this is going to impact the oil industry, I would like to refer them to a quote from Lee Raymond, the former ExxonMobil CEO who said on ``Fox News'' when asked whether Exxon was taking advantage of the new legislation that became law to speed up the development of refineries and capacity here in the U.S., he said ``it will not have a major impact.'' So I do not know why we are so concerned about keeping these subsidies when the industry itself, the big five oil companies are saying it has had a negligible impact. What it has had an impact on is consumers. And even the Joint Economic Committee has pointed out that the removal of these tax breaks are going to have very little impact on consumers. In fact, another third party observer, the Joint Tax Committee, basically said this $300 million in subsidies from the big five oil companies in 2008 that would be taken away would be less than 1 percent. In fact, it would have only a one-quarter of 1 percent impact on their profits. That is right. They made $120.8 billion in profit in 2006, so taking this subsidy away from them it will have a negligible impact. So what are we holding this up for? Why are we going to hold up the Energy bill because someone does not want to take more subsidies away from the oil industry and put them toward clean energy? Even President Bush recognized that the oil industry does not need more subsidies. President Bush, in April of 2005, said: I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. I couldn't agree with the President more. He said that at $55 a barrel. Now that we are at $90, we need to move faster in changing these incentive programs. We all know that fossil fuels will continue to be a big part of the energy mix for decades and that there is a great deal of economic benefit from the incentives in oil and gas today. But what we have to realize is we cannot continue in this same direction. We have to change course. We have to level the playing field and take away subsidies from very mature, very profitable industries and make investments in renewables instead. I know the President also agrees with that because when he signed the 2005 bill, he said: The bill offers new incentives to promote clean, renewable geothermal energy . . . When you hear us talking about less dependence on foreign sources of energy, and one of the ways to become less dependent is to enhance the use of renewable sources of energy. Again, I couldn't agree with the President more. But this is about getting a package that will help us give consumers the confidence that they are going to have true competition over the price at the pump. The Energy and Finance Committees had hearing after hearing talking to the experts. I know some people on the other side of the aisle would say that some of these tax incentives don't expire until the end of 2008. But this is about giving predictability to energy investment strategies. We heard in the Finance Committee testimony after testimony from experts saying: If you want to get more investment in renewable energy, you need to have more predictable energy tax credits. That is why we can see from our failed policies in the past that countries such as Denmark have made more headway, because they made more investment in renewables. Countries such as Japan have made more headway in solar energy because they made the investments. If we want to get beyond petroleum, we have to stop subsidizing it. The impact of this morning's vote is that our colleagues are going to say we should take out the Finance package and that somehow will be a completion of an energy strategy. I tell my colleagues, nothing could be more important than getting the long-term fundamentals right for investment so that America can get off our dependence on foreign oil. This legislation does represent nearly a 20-percent reduction in our current CO2 output and a 35-percent reduction in our foreign oil dependence. But to get those savings, we not only have to pass CAFE, we also have to pass incentives for renewable energy and do it for more than just 1 year so that we have predictable investment in these energy strategies and reap the economic benefits in jobs for America. I thank the staff and all Members who have worked so hard on this legislation. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to briefly address H.R. 3688, the Peru Trade Promotion Act. While this agreement stands to provide significant benefits to our country's agricultural industry, it comes with unfortunate consequences for our country's asparagus growers. My home State of Washington is one of the top asparagus producing States in the country. However, since the passage of the Andean Trade Preferences Act, Washington has lost 21,000 of its 30,000 acres dedicated to asparagus and all three of Washington's asparagus canning facilities have now moved to Peru. This is the reason that I worked so hard to include a $15 million Market Loss Program dedicated to asparagus growers in the Senate's version of the 2007 farm bill. This program will support domestic asparagus producers, helping them plant and harvest more efficiently and remain competitive in the international market. In the past 17 years, the $200 million Washington asparagus industry has been reduced to a $75 million industry. To say that I am concerned about this trade agreement's effect on Washington's asparagus farmers would be an understatement. I implore the Senate, as it continues negotiations on the farm bill to support these hard working individuals remain competitive in our international economy. With that said, the Peru Trade Promotion Act stands to significantly benefit the majority of farmers both in Washington and throughout our Nation. Under this agreement, Washington businesses will increase their exports to Peru by an estimated 45-62 percent and will immediately eliminate significant tariffs on many key goods. For example, Washington leads the Nation in potato exports and the current tariffs, now reaching up to 25 percent, will be eliminated immediately on most potato products. Washington's wheat farmers, whose exports are currently valued at over $314 million, will benefit greatly by the elimination of the 17-percent tariff on wheat. Washington's third largest industry, beef, has much to gain from the elimination of the 25-percent duty on beef. Dairy, our second largest farm industry will benefit from the elimination of a tariff system that has reached as high as 68 percent for dairy products being exported to Peru. Perhaps the most significant impact for Washington, however, will be for our fruit growers. Washington ranks as the second largest fruit exporter in the Nation, bringing in $833 million for the State. Duties on fruit exported to Peru are currently 25 percent and would be immediately eliminated under the PTPA--a huge win for Washington and its fruit growers. Peru is a new growth market for Washington's fruit industry and the elimination of these tariffs will make our fruit much more competitive in the export market. Given the significant benefits the vast majority of farmers in my State stand to reap from the Peru Trade Promotion Act, I will vote in favor of it, despite my grave concern for its effect on our asparagus industry. As PTPA is implemented, I will continue to fight to support asparagus growers through the Market Loss Program included in the Senate farm bill or any other means available to me and I strongly urge this body to do the same. The PTPA will benefit many, but it is up to us to assist those whose livelihoods are affected in the process of its implementation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Climate Change Adaptation Act of 2007. Before I describe the merits of this bill, I would like to take a moment to commend many of my colleagues for their ongoing efforts to develop legislative solutions to meet the enormous challenges global warming poses to our Nation and our planet. I feel this bill helps address a somewhat overlooked, but key tool, to tackling this preeminent challenge facing our Nation. I am proud that Washington State is taking the lead on the issue of global climate change. While my State's contribution to global warming is relatively small--because we are fortunate enough to derive about 70 percent of our electricity from inexpensive, emissions-free hydropower--global warming threatens to seriously impact our economy. Ironically, one of the primary impacts of global warming on the Pacific Northwest will be to change our rainfall patterns in a way that reduces the amount of water available for hydropower production. And these changes will not only harm electricity generation, they will also impact billions of dollars of economic infrastructure associated with irrigation systems, municipal water supplies, even ski resorts that depend on our historic snowfall patterns. Faced with these possibilities, we must ask several simple questions: What are we doing to prepare for these changes? How are predicted sea level rises being incorporated into shoreline restoration projects, siting of public infrastructure, or disaster response plans, among many other examples? What tools do we need to give Federal, State, and local decisionmakers to take climate change into account on long-term, multibillion-dollar decisions? Unfortunately, we don't have any answers. As we discovered when I held a hearing on ocean acidification as chair of the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard subcommittee last May, our Government is ill-equipped to plan for the consequences of global climate change. We simply lack the tools to develop the strategies we need to adapt. In August, the Government Accountability Office found that the Federal government is not providing Federal agencies with the proper tools or policy mandates to take climate change impacts into account in carrying out their responsibilities to manage public resources. In September, the National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a tremendous need to improve the delivery of climate change information to Federal, regional, and local levels so they can take climate change impacts into account in planning and managing resources. The reality is that even if we were somehow able to stop using fossil fuels today, a certain degree of warming and ocean acidification will still occur over the next 2 or 3 decades. While my top priority is to move our Nation to a clean energy system, we must face the fact that global warming is happening already, and it is only going to get worse. That is why I am pleased today to be introducing the Climate Change Adaptation Act--a bill to ensure that our government plans for the changes that global warming will inevitably bring. This bill will require the President to develop a national strategy for addressing the impacts that climate change will have on our natural resources. It will also specifically require NOAA to conduct vulnerability assessments on the impacts of climate change on coastal and ocean resources, and to prepare adaptation plans for those resources. Planning for the future isn't just common sense--it's responsible government. This bill is complementary to several bills under consideration by the Commerce Committee on which I serve, including the Kerry-Snowe bill that was under discussion at a Commerce Committee hearing earlier today. Their bill contains many provisions I believe are vitally important--including language I authored with Senator Collins on the need for a program to study the threat of abrupt climate change. I'm also proud to work with Senator Lautenberg on legislation combating ocean acidification. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move all these critical bills out of the committee and through the Senate in the coming weeks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Climate Change Adaptation Act of 2007. Before I describe the merits of this bill, I would like to take a moment to commend many of my colleagues for their ongoing efforts to develop legislative solutions to meet the enormous challenges global warming poses to our Nation and our planet. I feel this bill helps address a somewhat overlooked, but key tool, to tackling this preeminent challenge facing our Nation. I am proud that Washington State is taking the lead on the issue of global climate change. While my State's contribution to global warming is relatively small--because we are fortunate enough to derive about 70 percent of our electricity from inexpensive, emissions-free hydropower--global warming threatens to seriously impact our economy. Ironically, one of the primary impacts of global warming on the Pacific Northwest will be to change our rainfall patterns in a way that reduces the amount of water available for hydropower production. And these changes will not only harm electricity generation, they will also impact billions of dollars of economic infrastructure associated with irrigation systems, municipal water supplies, even ski resorts that depend on our historic snowfall patterns. Faced with these possibilities, we must ask several simple questions: What are we doing to prepare for these changes? How are predicted sea level rises being incorporated into shoreline restoration projects, siting of public infrastructure, or disaster response plans, among many other examples? What tools do we need to give Federal, State, and local decisionmakers to take climate change into account on long-term, multibillion-dollar decisions? Unfortunately, we don't have any answers. As we discovered when I held a hearing on ocean acidification as chair of the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard subcommittee last May, our Government is ill-equipped to plan for the consequences of global climate change. We simply lack the tools to develop the strategies we need to adapt. In August, the Government Accountability Office found that the Federal government is not providing Federal agencies with the proper tools or policy mandates to take climate change impacts into account in carrying out their responsibilities to manage public resources. In September, the National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a tremendous need to improve the delivery of climate change information to Federal, regional, and local levels so they can take climate change impacts into account in planning and managing resources. The reality is that even if we were somehow able to stop using fossil fuels today, a certain degree of warming and ocean acidification will still occur over the next 2 or 3 decades. While my top priority is to move our Nation to a clean energy system, we must face the fact that global warming is happening already, and it is only going to get worse. That is why I am pleased today to be introducing the Climate Change Adaptation Act--a bill to ensure that our government plans for the changes that global warming will inevitably bring. This bill will require the President to develop a national strategy for addressing the impacts that climate change will have on our natural resources. It will also specifically require NOAA to conduct vulnerability assessments on the impacts of climate change on coastal and ocean resources, and to prepare adaptation plans for those resources. Planning for the future isn't just common sense--it's responsible government. This bill is complementary to several bills under consideration by the Commerce Committee on which I serve, including the Kerry-Snowe bill that was under discussion at a Commerce Committee hearing earlier today. Their bill contains many provisions I believe are vitally important--including language I authored with Senator Collins on the need for a program to study the threat of abrupt climate change. I'm also proud to work with Senator Lautenberg on legislation combating ocean acidification. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move all these critical bills out of the committee and through the Senate in the coming weeks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, if there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam Chair, I thank the Senator from California for answering that question and again for her great leadership on trying to push forward global warming and climate impact legislation in the Senate. We do have to move forward. Her resiliency in saying the committee will address it, the committee will mark up legislation is the next step in what we need to do in following through. I applaud her for her dedication and for answering that question. At $90 a barrel for oil, I certainly wish the rest of the Nation would have followed what California has done in that consumption reduction because it would have helped all of us on today's oil prices.

Ms. CANTWELL. First, I compliment the Senator for her very articulate understanding of the impact of greenhouse gases and where our country needs to go. So thank you for your leadership. We are so happy that you are chairing that committee and showing the fortitude to make sure this legislation starts moving through the Senate. You mentioned California's experience. I wonder if you would just elaborate on that one more time because I think the point may have been--it sounds so simple but yet so complex. California's savings is what we are trying to do in the Energy bill. Here we have a 20-percent reduction of fuel consumption and a 20-percent reduction of greenhouse gases. That is why we need to pass the Energy bill. But you are talking about California's efficiency, and the efficiency that it achieved was monumental and significant. If you would, emphasize or explain how it is that we should be doing the same thing in the Senate in moving forward on efficiency.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam Chair, did that cost California jobs?

Ms. CANTWELL. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the sequential referral of the nomination of Julia L. Myers, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, to the Committee on Judiciary be extended until November 2, 2007; further that if the nomination is not reported at that time, the nomination then be automatically discharged and placed on the Executive Calendar.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m, Tuesday, October 30; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 294, the Amtrak legislation; that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for the respective party conference meetings; further, I ask unanimous consent that the Members have until 12 noon to file any second-degree amendments.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, as a reminder to Members, a couple of votes with respect to amendments are expected to occur prior to the cloture vote; therefore, up to three rollcall votes could occur prior to the Senate recessing for the caucus meetings.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 359, submitted earlier today.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 255, R. Lyle Laverty to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife; that the nomination be confirmed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the President is turning a deaf ear to the crying needs of millions of American children by vetoing the Children's Health Insurance Program. The President claims this is an inefficient use of Federal dollars, but nothing could be further from the truth. When a family goes without health insurance, it means going without regular checkups, children missing more school than other children, and children waiting until the emergency room is the only answer. It means we don't catch ailments like ear infections and cavities and diabetes and asthma. It means treatable conditions are more likely to spiral out of control. And it means American taxpayers are spending billions of dollars for uncompensated care instead of spending money up front to provide continuity of care. It is not more efficient to veto this bill. With better coverage, we can treat things like fevers and injuries and infections before they turn into something far worse. We can catch chronic illnesses earlier and help children manage their conditions. We can save American taxpayers' dollars. But the President is turning a deaf ear to over 3.8 million Americans who simply cannot afford health insurance. How could they? Mr. President, are your budget analysts just numb to the fact that Americans are seeing higher and higher costs of health insurance? Are you choosing to ignore the fact that health insurance premiums grew by 78 percent since 2001, while wages only grew 19 percent? Are you choosing to ignore that nearly half of the increase of uninsured children in America in the last several years occurred among those between 200 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line? That means more Americans are falling into the category of not being able to cover health insurance. Are you ignoring the fact that record numbers of businesses are dropping health insurance for their employees? That means a family with $41,000 trying to find health insurance could end up having to pay 30 percent of their annual income. What American family can afford to pay 30 percent of their income to find health insurance? American families are being squeezed out of health insurance, and the President of the United States is turning a deaf ear to the crying health care needs of our children. All we are doing is paying the bill later. The President should not be so heartless when it comes to the children of America. I know my colleagues are working shoulder to shoulder, Democrats and Republicans, trying to stop the President's veto. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives will have the courage to stand up to the President. But be assured that Republicans and Democrats in the Senate will continue this measure in whatever ways we can on behalf of America's children. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program and why we need to reauthorize the program that is about to expire in September. I thank Chairman Baucus and Senators Grassley, Rockefeller, and Hatch for their countless hours of meetings before the Senate Finance Committee, which met to mark up this bipartisan package. The fact that the bill passed out of committee with such a bipartisan effort shows people are working on both sides of the aisle to make children's health care a priority. While my colleagues have talked a lot about what the administration has threatened to do in vetoing this legislation, in fact, as my colleague from Iowa mentioned on the floor, the President's own budget request doesn't put enough money on the table to take care of those currently enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program. In a bipartisan effort in the Senate, we are working across the aisle to say we want to do more, we want to cover about 3.2 million more children. I thank my colleagues and their staff for coming up with this comprehensive bill and moving us further down the way to covering more children in America, as it is such a priority. Some of my colleagues have mentioned why this is such important timing, and many have mentioned the fact that the bill's authorization is expiring in September. I think there is a more important reason. The important reason is we are seeing the cost of health care continue to rise; the fact that premiums have doubled, probably, in the last 5 to 6 years; the fact that insurance now is somewhere between $12,000 and $14,000 a year. A family who is at an income of $40,000 a year for a family of four is finding it very hard to keep pace. Those premiums may have doubled, but I guarantee you their wages and salaries have not doubled. So more and more people are finding themselves in the unfortunate situation of not being able to provide health care for their children. I can tell you, in talking to people from all over Washington State, there is nothing more concerning to the parents than the health of their child and nothing more scary than to think they may not be able to get the health care attention their child needs. So for us, we have a choice--a very smart choice. This is a cost- effective bill. If you think about the costs of providing children's health insurance under this proposal, we are helping families who cannot afford private insurance, or cannot find it available in the marketplace, or maybe their employer is not providing it. Now, under this program, with State and Federal matching dollars, these families can provide health insurance for roughly $2,000 a year per child--maybe a little more or a little less, in some instances, for those currently on the program to the new enrollees. Think about that. Think about the fact that if you don't have health insurance and a child is delayed in getting that health care or has to wait until the last minute to go into an emergency room, I guarantee the cost of a child's visit to an emergency room is probably going to be at least $3,000. The fact that we can make this prudent investment for 3.2 million more children; not only is this about their health and safety for the future, but it is about a plan that helps us in making sure we have an efficient health care system, giving those children their due need. Too many families, as I said, are being forced to go without this coverage. What does that mean? We talk about preventive care and maintenance care. It means that these children are going without regular checkups, that they are missing more school than other children, and that they have to wait in the emergency room to get an answer about something that is a basic illness. It means that if simple infections--such as an ear infection or cavities or asthma or diabetes--go untreated and they spiral out of control, that child may fall further and further behind in their academic career. I believe no child should be forced into a special education program because their health care needs haven't been provided for. This bill provides better coverage so we can treat things such as injuries and infections, detect far worse things such as chronic illnesses and make sure we are managing the conditions of children before they get out of control. I know it is upsetting to my colleagues to read things such as: Uninsured children are four times more likely to delay their health care or that uninsured children are four times more likely to go without a doctor visit for 2 years or that uninsured children admitted to hospitals due to injuries are twice as likely to die while in the hospital as their insured counterparts. Those are horrible statistics that point to the dilemma of not providing health care coverage for children. I know my colleagues have been out here on the floor debating this issue as it relates to fairness and geography. I tell you, no child knows they are somehow prohibited from getting access to health insurance because of geography. Nor should the Senate make the mistake in thinking we are making geographic choices. This bill is about flexibility. It starts with the flexibility of individual States because this is a partnership between the States and Federal Government in deciding what percentage of the Federal poverty line they are going to cover. You can see on this chart the States in white have been more aggressive in covering a higher percentage of the Federal poverty line, and those in the gold color are obviously below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why certain States are more aggressive or active in covering their area. If you look at the income and cost of living in these areas, they are challenged by what it takes to maintain a household, to put their children in school, and to take care of their health care needs. For example, there are parts of the country such as New Jersey, which the Presiding Officer is from. If you look at what it takes to provide the same goods and services in New Jersey and compare that with someplace like Arkansas, you are talking about a $13,000 difference in what it costs to provide the same services. In Little Rock, it may cost $30,000 for those goods and services, compared to $43,000 in New Jersey. That is why this flexibility is so important in the program. The fact that we allow States to determine its costs and we match that with Federal dollars. The second thing we have not focused enough on is the fact that we also have disparity in insurance costs. Look at what it costs to provide insurance. For example, it is expensive to provide health insurance in Seattle, which costs about $13,000 a year. If you look at New York, it is $16,542. So the notion that somehow New York or New Jersey are getting a better deal because they live in a high-expense area of the United States and somehow, even with that extra cost of insurance, we should prejudice legislation from serving those children, I say that is a mistake. Every child in America who is covered by this health insurance program will be healthier, and every child who is covered and healthy will not only be a more contributing citizen to our society, but also we are going to reduce our own health care costs in the future. So it is a wise and prudent plan to have such diversity in this proposal. I ask my colleagues, before they come out and look at formulas and offer amendments that basically cut States from having the flexibility in these formulas, to consider the geographic disparity and the challenges those individual States face. I believe the Children's Health Insurance Program provides a critical backstop to families. They would rather be in a situation where they could provide the health insurance and care, I am sure, for themselves. I have certainly met Washingtonians who have given up their own health insurance to provide health insurance for their children. We need to prevent the number of uninsured children in this Nation from growing, and this bill, the Children's Health Insurance Program, should be reauthorized and expanded to make sure we do stop the number from growing and that we attach our principles of covering at least 3.2 million now and, as we see brighter budget days coming back, covering the rest of the children in America. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2008 along with Senators Snowe, Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg, and Lott. This comprehensive legislation will provide the Coast Guard with needed resources to carry out missions critical to our Nation's security, environmental protection, and fisheries enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard plays a critical role in keeping our oceans, coasts, and waterways safe, secure, and free from environmental harm. After September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, the Coast Guard has been a source of strength. As marine traffic grows, the number of security threats in our ports increases. Climate change is raising the stakes of another Katrina happening. The Coast Guard faces many challenges, and those serving in the Coast Guard routinely serve with discipline and courage. From saving lives during natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to protecting our shores in a post-9/11 world, the Coast Guard has served America well, and continues to serve us every day. Each year, maritime smugglers transport thousands of aliens to the U.S. with virtual impunity because the existing law does not sufficiently punish or deter such conduct. During fiscal years 2004 and 2005, over 840 mariners made $13.9 million smuggling people into the U.S. illegally. Less than 3 percent of those who were interdicted were referred for prosecution. This bill gives the Coast Guard the authority it needs to prosecute mariners who intentionally smuggle aliens on board their vessels with a reckless disregard of our laws. It also provides protection for legitimate mariners who encounter stowaways or those who may need medical attention. Our Nation relies heavily on polar icebreakers to conduct missions in the Arctic and Antarctic. They conduct vital research on the oceans and climate, resupply U.S. outposts in Antarctica, and provide one of our Nation's only platforms for carrying out security and rescue missions in some of the world's most rapidly changing environments. Currently, the United States' icebreaking capabilities lie with the Coast Guard's three vessels: the HEALY; the Polar Sea; and the Polar Star. But the fleet is aging rapidly and requires extensive maintenance. In fact, the Polar Star is currently not even operational because the Coast Guard lacks the resources required to maintain this vessel. With increased climate change, the role of icebreakers is changing. With an ice-free Arctic summer expected by 2050, more and more international expeditions will be headed to the region to examine newly revealed oil and gas reserves and other natural resources. Canada, Russia and other countries will begin to compete with America over jurisdiction and, without a strong polar icebreaker fleet, our Nation will suffer a severe disadvantage. A recent 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that the U.S. needs to maintain polar icebreaking capacity and construct at least two new polar icebreakers. This bill follows those recommendations. This bill includes many provisions of the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, which I introduced on June 14, 2007. These provisions are vital for the environmental protection of our Nation's oceans and coasts. For example, this bill would require improved coordination with federally-recognized tribes on oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. It would also address oil spills resulting from the transfer of oil to or from vessels, spills resulting from human error, and small oil spills that are an all-too-common occurrence in many of our waterways. For my home State of Washington, it provides a mechanism for year- round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oil spill prevention safety net for Washington State's Olympic Coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port Line'' so as to deliver better incident response throughout Puget Sound. The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring our country's security, marine safety and protecting our environment and fisheries. Every day the Coast Guard carries out these missions and does so with limited resources. It is our job to ensure the Coast Guard has the tools it requires to continue getting the job done. This bill will go a long way towards that goal. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2008 along with Senators Snowe, Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg, and Lott. This comprehensive legislation will provide the Coast Guard with needed resources to carry out missions critical to our Nation's security, environmental protection, and fisheries enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard plays a critical role in keeping our oceans, coasts, and waterways safe, secure, and free from environmental harm. After September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, the Coast Guard has been a source of strength. As marine traffic grows, the number of security threats in our ports increases. Climate change is raising the stakes of another Katrina happening. The Coast Guard faces many challenges, and those serving in the Coast Guard routinely serve with discipline and courage. From saving lives during natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to protecting our shores in a post-9/11 world, the Coast Guard has served America well, and continues to serve us every day. Each year, maritime smugglers transport thousands of aliens to the U.S. with virtual impunity because the existing law does not sufficiently punish or deter such conduct. During fiscal years 2004 and 2005, over 840 mariners made $13.9 million smuggling people into the U.S. illegally. Less than 3 percent of those who were interdicted were referred for prosecution. This bill gives the Coast Guard the authority it needs to prosecute mariners who intentionally smuggle aliens on board their vessels with a reckless disregard of our laws. It also provides protection for legitimate mariners who encounter stowaways or those who may need medical attention. Our Nation relies heavily on polar icebreakers to conduct missions in the Arctic and Antarctic. They conduct vital research on the oceans and climate, resupply U.S. outposts in Antarctica, and provide one of our Nation's only platforms for carrying out security and rescue missions in some of the world's most rapidly changing environments. Currently, the United States' icebreaking capabilities lie with the Coast Guard's three vessels: the HEALY; the Polar Sea; and the Polar Star. But the fleet is aging rapidly and requires extensive maintenance. In fact, the Polar Star is currently not even operational because the Coast Guard lacks the resources required to maintain this vessel. With increased climate change, the role of icebreakers is changing. With an ice-free Arctic summer expected by 2050, more and more international expeditions will be headed to the region to examine newly revealed oil and gas reserves and other natural resources. Canada, Russia and other countries will begin to compete with America over jurisdiction and, without a strong polar icebreaker fleet, our Nation will suffer a severe disadvantage. A recent 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that the U.S. needs to maintain polar icebreaking capacity and construct at least two new polar icebreakers. This bill follows those recommendations. This bill includes many provisions of the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, which I introduced on June 14, 2007. These provisions are vital for the environmental protection of our Nation's oceans and coasts. For example, this bill would require improved coordination with federally-recognized tribes on oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. It would also address oil spills resulting from the transfer of oil to or from vessels, spills resulting from human error, and small oil spills that are an all-too-common occurrence in many of our waterways. For my home State of Washington, it provides a mechanism for year- round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oil spill prevention safety net for Washington State's Olympic Coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port Line'' so as to deliver better incident response throughout Puget Sound. The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring our country's security, marine safety and protecting our environment and fisheries. Every day the Coast Guard carries out these missions and does so with limited resources. It is our job to ensure the Coast Guard has the tools it requires to continue getting the job done. This bill will go a long way towards that goal. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise because I believe we need to have an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Levin-Reed amendment. I believe it is time to change course in Iraq. I believe a majority of the Senate believes we need to change course in Iraq and change the combat role the United States is playing to a role of support. We have lost more than 3,600 U.S. soldiers, and my State of Washington has been deeply involved from the very beginning, from the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln to the service of the Stryker brigade from Fort Lewis and the continued service of that brigade on the front lines in Iraq today. The Stryker brigade has suffered severe casualties, and they continue to serve us well. The cost of this war has been great, over $450 billion. The United States is now spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. What we are asking is the ability to find out whether a majority of the Senate supports changing the course in Iraq. By filibustering, the other side is preventing us from finding that out. I am not saying I don't support the rights of the minority to filibuster. I do. But I also respect the strong desire by the American people to see where every Senator stands on this proposal to change the course in Iraq being proposed today. That is what the debate is about, whether we are going to see how each Senator votes on this issue. If the filibuster continues, we won't see that vote. Some people have talked about the surge. I respect those who believe and advocate for the surge. I do not support the surge as a strategy. This Senator bought into the milestones that this body approved in the Warner-Frist amendment. I believed in a bipartisan effort of 79 Senators, in legislation that was a part of the Defense authorization act that was then signed by the President of the United States in January 2006. The Warner-Frist amendment said, in a bipartisan fashion, what this body wanted to see happen in Iraq. It said that 2006 should be the year of significant transition. We said that 2006 is when Iraqi Security Forces should take the lead. That is when they should create conditions for a phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That was the goal at the end 2006. I took those goals seriously. The Warner-Frist amendment said we should be telling the leaders of all groups and all political parties in Iraq that in 2006 they needed to make the political compromises necessary to achieve the broad, sustainable political settlements that were essential for bringing Iraq together and defeating the insurgents. Even during that time period, President Talabani of Iraq said that by the end of 2006 they would be able to take over all 18 provinces under their security. So, yes, this Senator was greatly disappointed when those goals were not met. Again, I did not support the surge because the 2006 milestones were not met. It showed that we were not making sufficient progress in Iraq and needed a change of course. And by any measure today, the Iraqis have not and are not making progress on the political and security benchmarks that need to be achieved. Debaathification reform, amendments to the Iraqi Constitution, the passage of an oil law--all of these things are being stymied. Only seven of the 18 provinces have acquired full responsibility for their own security, even though there are 349,000 Iraqi security forces that have been trained and equipped. The violence continues in Iraq, everywhere from Kirkuk to Basra. This Senator wants to see a change in how we are approaching this situation. I want to see more of an aggressive effort on diplomacy and international engagement to press for political solutions to stabilize Iraq. This is what the Iraq Study Group called for. It said: The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. That is what the Iraq Study Group recommended. It saw that at the heart of the violence in Iraq were political disagreements causing a lot of turmoil within the country. Those disputes require a diplomatic and political solution. I believe this is what is at the core of the Levin-Reed amendment--a strategy to press for a political solution. I know my colleagues disagree on dates and guidelines in the amendment. However, I believe in the Levin-Reed amendment, which calls for a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purposes of collectively bringing stability to that region. I applaud Senator Hagel for including language in this amendment requiring the United States to work with the United Nations to appoint an international mediator for Iraq. I know people believe the United States should continue to play a primary role in Iraqi disputes, but the United Nations and United Nations Security Council must have a significant role. The international community should engage in these political and ethnic issues that are stymying us. I believe it is time for the international community and the United States not to be for the long, hard slog of deployment but for the long, hard slog of diplomacy. The Levin-Reed amendment creates a framework for international engagement that has been missing. Why do I believe this is so important? I believe this is important because I think one of the key benchmarks we are missing that has caused great consternation is the issue of equitable distribution of Iraqi oil revenue. I wish the Iraqis had successfully passed an oil law and it had stabilized the region. It is no surprise that three different regions of the country are concerned about the distribution of oil revenue. There is a lot of concern about exactly who will have control over the oil in those areas, how much oil revenue will be distributed by the federal government, and what role the new Iraqi national oil company will play. But also at the heart of this dispute are Iraqi fears that, in the draft oil law, there is a great deal of benefit for foreign oil companies. In fact, the Bush administration has pushed the current draft of an oil law that allows for the privatization of Iraqi oil. I know that there is a dangerous perception that somehow we went to Iraq for oil. That was not something this Senator believed. However, there have been many statements that concern me. In fact, Ahmed Chalabi was quoted as saying: American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil. Another European oil executive said: For any oil company being in Iraq is like being a kid in FAO Schwarz. This Senator did not pay much attention to that, but I am paying attention now to the fact that this current draft of an oil law says the Iraqi National Oil Company would have exclusive control--that is the federal entity--of just 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields. All the rest, along with all the undiscovered oil, would be open to foreign control. So the majority of oil in Iraq would be open to foreign control. Why is this such a big deal? It is important because at one time Iraqi oil reserves were seen as the second largest in the world. Today they are probably somewhere between the third and fourth largest oil reserves. In fact, the Heritage Foundation, in 2003, released a paper advocating for the privatization of Iraq's oil and arguing that Iraq's reconstruction and privatization of its oil and gas sector could become a model for oil industry privatization in other OPEC states as well. I know that may be attractive to people who think we should stay there and somehow glom on to Iraqi oil. This Senator does not believe that is what we should be doing. I know that many people have mentioned former Secretary of State Kissinger's recent policy op-ed piece. He said we cannot allow the Iraqi energy supply to be controlled by a country with Iran's revolutionary and taunting foreign policy. He suggested that, if we leave and Iran takes over, they will have control of the Iraqi oil. But I would refer those who agree with Kissinger to the Iraq Study Group's conclusion: The United States can begin to shape a positive climate for diplomatic efforts internationally with Iraq through public statements that reject the notion that the United States seeks to control Iraq's oil or seeks to have permanent bases within Iraq. We are sending the wrong message in Iraq if we continue to support a policy that gives the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government the notion that we are there to try to control the oil. Like the Iraq Study Group, I believe the international community and international energy companies should invest in Iraqi oil. Foreign expertise in investment is important to upgrading the infrastructure and boosting production. But that international involvement must come at Iraq's initiative, and the Iraqi people must decide what level of foreign participation is best for their country. We need to send the Iraqi people, the people of the Middle East, and the world a message that is loud and clear--we do not intend to stay in Iraq for their oil. To that end, I am happy to cosponsor with my colleague Senator Biden a resolution that calls on us to clearly articulate that we have no intention of keeping permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or any intentions of exercising control over Iraqi oil. Before we went into Iraq, there were a lot of people, including the Vice President, who said we would get X million barrels a day from Iraq. Former Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz estimated at one point in time the oil revenues of that country would bring us between $50 and $100 billion over the next 2 to 3 years. One State Department spokesperson said oil would be the ``engine of Iraq's reconstruction. No one is talking about a Marshall plan for Iraq because the oil will take care of that.'' That did not happen. Today we see a bogged-down political process in Iraq because they are fighting over oil. We can move ahead, and this amendment by my colleagues Senators Levin and Reed gives us the framework to do that. Our efforts here in the Senate are moving forward on a diversified plan to get off our overdependence on Middle East oil. They are also critically important. I know some would say: Well, it is important that we make sure that terrorists don't get their hands on Iraqi oil money. I would remind my colleagues that a U.S. Government report that was obtained by the New York Times said many insurgents involved in terrorist attacks in Iraq are already raising $25 to $100 million a year from oil smuggling and criminal activities. It is important to secure Iraqi oil infrastructure and for the Iraqis to resolve their disputes over oil rights. I believe we should move ahead on a framework that has more international involvement. The United States and the international community should be trying to bring Iraqis together to reach compromises on these important issues. I believe this is something the United States can achieve. Some people may look at the problems in Iraq, the ongoing ethnic violence, the division between the Sunnis and Shiites and the Kurds, and think it is impossible to stabilize the country. But the United States has stepped up to serious international challenges in the past and stabilized new governments that have also been plagued by ethnic violence and long histories of dispute. How did we do it? All we have to do is look at the former Yugoslavia where the international community got together with various parties, from the European Union to Russia to NATO to countries in the region, and built a framework that ended serious ethnic violence. The civil war in Bosnia resulted in 100,000 to 110,000 deaths. While it is not on the same scale as the challenges we face in Iraq, the peace the United States was able to help achieve was nonetheless remarkable. We must do the same thing in Iraq. We need the help of the United Nations, the Arab League, and the rest of Iraq's neighbors, and we need the framework in the amendment my colleagues Senators Levin and Reed have authored. It would put us on a path toward a real comprehensive diplomatic and political solution for Iraq. We deserve the chance to have an up or down vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. It is now an important time for us to realize that the benchmarks we set have not, and are not, being met. We need a change of course in Iraq. We need to have more involvement by the international community in solving the political problems on the ground. The Levin- Reed amendment would make a strong statement about what the U.S. hopes to achieve in stabilizing the Iraqi government. And we need to put to rest the notion that the United States will stay in Iraq for oil or for permanent U.S. bases. We cannot continue in an endless combat role in Iraq. We need to change the course, and we can have a policy that allows us to do that by holding an up or down vote on this amendment today. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, during the fall of 2006, Mount Rainier, Olympic, and North Cascades National Parks endured incredible devastation from tremendous wind and rainstorms. Mount Rainier National Park received almost 18 inches of rainfall in 36 hours. Rivers and streams all over the park overwhelmed their channels, with floods that exceeded anything the park had experienced in its 108-year history. Olympic National Park experienced a series of Pacific storms that brought significant road and trail damage. North Cascades National Park Complex experienced numerous winter windstorms, which resulted in abnormally large numbers of downed trees over trails and floods causing damage to several roads. The National Park Service estimated that damage to roads, trails, campgrounds, and buildings in all three parks exceeded $40 million. Today I recommend to National Park Director Mary Bomar the awarding of National Park Service commendations to the entire staff of Mount Rainier, Olympic and North Cascades National Parks for their commitment to repair and restore these parks. Their efforts exemplify the mandate of the National Park Service ``to provide for the enjoyment of [the parks] in such manner and by which means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' Immediately following the storm, the personnel of these national parks worked continuously, often during their days off, to repair roads, rebuild trails, clean up campgrounds, and repair facilities. The citizens of Washington have a great interest in ensuring that the health, public and economic benefits, and welfare of Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic National Parks are restored for present and future generations. Without the extraordinary efforts of Park Service employees, it is likely that the parks would be decades from completing repairs, to the extent that they would be completed at all. It is my honor as a Senator of the State of Washington to recognize the heroic efforts of these men and women and express my gratitude on behalf of my constituents and all Americans that enjoy and treasure these parks as ``sanctuaries of enjoyment, recreation, learning, and personal renewal.''