Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise tonight because we are on the precipice of passing new energy legislation--new energy legislation that will point our country in a new direction, on an energy strategy that is about cleaner, renewable alternative fuel, and, yes, on research and development, on many other ways that will help us, as Americans, be energy leaders again. It is exciting to be here tonight on the Senate floor as new legislation is being adopted that does change the direction in ways my colleagues have been fighting for many years and many of the staff who are behind me have been fighting for much of their legislative careers on the Hill. But we are here tonight because Senator Reid, early this year, asked six different committees to come up with energy legislation and point our country in a new direction. He asked each of those committees to put those proposals on the Senate floor by passing them out in a bipartisan fashion, and those committees have done so. Now, while we have not gotten all those packages together, we do have a proposal before us that would save the United States 20 percent on the oil consumption of today. That is a great goal. It does it in two fundamental ways: by making sure we produce alternative fuel--and what is before us tonight is 36 billion gallons of alternative fuel, mostly done by advanced technologies of cellulosic that will be a much bigger reduction of CO2 emissions than corn-based ethanol, and that is a huge direction change--and the amendment of the Senator from California to make sure we have fuel-efficient cars. For the first time in decades, we are passing legislation that will allow Americans to get more out of a tank of gas. In fact, with this new standard for fuel efficiency, Americans, when they fill up their tank, will be able to go anywhere from 100 to 150 more miles on that tank of gas when these fuel efficiency standards are fully implemented. Because we are also including a flex-fuel provision, we are giving Americans a chance to have their automobiles run on two different fuel choices: fossil fuel or new advanced green renewable fuels that will be a great reduction of CO2 and carbon emissions and will help in the reduction of demand for gasoline and thereby help lower the price of gasoline. This is exactly what America wants us to do in a new energy direction. We should also emphasize that the underlying bill tonight also has protections for consumers on price gouging and to make sure the Federal Trade Commission stops any manipulative practices. It also has a provision that the Federal Government do its job as one of the leading energy consumers in America. It says they have to use 30 percent less electricity and 20 percent less fuel. Now, while I would like to see the provisions the Finance Committee passed that literally take the incentives which have been given to the fossil fuel industry in the past--take those and apply those to renewable technologies--we will have to wait another day for that battle to occur. I certainly join my colleagues in wanting to see more of our electricity grid supplied with green energy technology, to incentivize solar, to incentivize wind. I believe this is one of the best ways we can keep our electricity costs down in the future. Right now, we are too dependent on natural gas, for which we have seen a 70-percent increase in the last several years. Natural gas, which is also used in fertilizer as a product, is putting pressure on our electricity grid prices. We do not want to be just dependent on natural gas and coal for electricity generation. So coming back to this renewable standard and getting more of our national grid to rely on clean energy is very important to help consumers keep down price in the future. But those two provisions, we will have to come back to. We were not able to reach agreement on those. But in this landmark legislation, we are going to give Americans more for their tank of gas by passing fuel efficiency and passing the opportunity to fill up their gas tank with something other than fossil fuel. Driving down the price of fossil fuel is a great accomplishment. We would not have gotten here if it was not for the chairman of the Commerce Committee and the ranking member, Senators Inouye and Stevens, who worked very hard to make sure this was bipartisan legislation, as did Senator Snowe, working with Senator Feinstein, making sure this legislation made it the full way through the process. While this is only the Senate taking action tonight, we are clearly turning our country in a new direction. This is a greener energy bill than the Senate has passed before but rightly so because the 2005 bill did set us on a course of making sure we were investing in alternatives. The fact that we were putting a downpayment on those alternatives has led to job creation, not just in my State, Washington State, but throughout the country. But it is time for us to accelerate that, to bring job opportunities to Americans across the country, by making sure these new technologies are implemented. We are well poised to do that tonight. I hope my colleagues understand the significance of this new energy direction. I thank all of the chairs of the various committees who have worked hard on a bipartisan basis--the Finance Committee, the EPW Committee, the Energy Committee, the Commerce Committee, and even the Homeland Security Committee--in making sure our Federal Government is more energy efficient. This is a great time for us to continue the bipartisan effort in working not just across the aisle but working with the House of Representatives in making sure this energy legislation passes as soon as possible. Again, I applaud the great work of my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her perseverance over at least 10 years in trying to close the loopholes that have existed in CAFE, the car efficiency standards, by making sure the loopholes for SUVs were closed. Even though she did not win that battle, she persevered tonight to make sure this new efficiency standard, applied across the Nation, can bring real savings to American consumers. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I congratulate the members of the University of Washington Men's Crew Team, which won the Intercollegiate Rowing Association Championships on June 2, 2007 at Copper River in New Jersey. The Washington Huskies came to the Intercollegiate Rowing Association Championship Regatta with great expectations. All season, the team was ranked No. 1 in the Nation and was ranked as the top seed at the regatta. And the University of Washington delivered. The men's varsity eight raced down the 2,000 meter course to a first place finish with a time of 5:33.16, holding off advances from Stanford and Harvard. This is the first time since 1997 that the Huskies have won the varsity eight race and marks the 12th varsity eight national championship for the University. In addition, the second varsity eight and open four boats also earned gold medals, finishing their races in 5:43.02 and 6:26.44 respectfully. The Huskies freshman eight also found themselves on the podium stand, finishing third in their race. In addition to these individual boat success stories, the Husky men exhibited teamwork by winning the overall points championship and capturing the Ten Eyck Trophy for the first time since 1970. The University of Washington amassed 216 points, followed by Harvard with 191, and California with 190. The Huskies have been competing in the Intercollegiate Rowing Association Championship Regatta since 1913. I am proud that this group of young men has continued this tradition of competition and success at this year's championship and they should be commended for their determination, work ethic, and heart. Once again, I would like to congratulate the members of the University of Washington Men's Crew Team for their impressive achievement.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of what is the Bingaman amendment, to make sure we diversify our national energy supply by investing in 15 percent renewables, and against the Domenici amendment, which the chairman of the Energy Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, just mentioned he is going to make a motion to table pretty soon. I agree to tabling that amendment. Let me say that I have listened to a lot of the debate on renewables and what we need to do, and I have heard a lot of people talk about wind out here and a lot of people talk about solar. I look at this a little differently. I really think this debate is all about natural gas. I say it is about natural gas because I listen to the farmers in Washington State and throughout America about the high price of natural gas. I hear how much the price of natural gas is going up. The issue is that natural gas is used both for our electricity grid and it is used as a product to make a solid for fertilizer that farmers need, and the price is going up. It has gone anywhere from what historically used to be $2, to $7 or $8, and in some cases we have seen it go as high as $14 or $15. What I am saying is that we are having competition for natural gas between our electricity grids and our farmers. The future of natural gas is only going to increase. It is only going to increase. That leaves us with one choice; that is, to diversify off of natural gas for our electricity grid. How do we diversify off natural gas for our electricity grid? We start planning for renewables. I know there are many utilities wandering the Halls of Congress trying to lobby against this particular provision of the United States setting a goal of focusing on renewable energy. I would say to them: Go look at how the U.S. economy is being impacted because we are already dependent on coal, already dependent on nuclear power, and already dependent on this natural gas that is continuing to rise at steady levels and is going to impact our agricultural economy. In fact, 15 years ago, only 10 percent of our U.S. nitrogen, a fertilizer product, was imported. Today about half of it is imported. We have seen many of these businesses, over 21 of them in the United States, shut down because of these high costs. What we need to do is push to give alternative fuel; that is, alternative sources of electricity generation, an opportunity to be used in America. The best way for us to do that is to set this mandate in Federal policy so we can protect consumers from the high cost of natural gas in the future. To do nothing is to say that farmers are going to have to pay more or maybe go out of business or their products are going to be too expensive for international markets or say to consumers: You are going to pay more for your electricity because natural gas prices are going to rise or we can say to consumers instead: We took active measures to diversify our electricity supply and to start using other renewables that will help in getting off the high cost of natural gas. To my colleagues who come to the floor and say alternative fuels are going to cost more, doing nothing is going to cost more, and depending on the current infrastructure is going to cost more because we already know those supplies are going to go up. Let's take the use of natural gas down by creating other alternatives. I happen to believe that creating those other alternatives actually will save consumers. I know people have mentioned how the Union of Concerned Scientists say it will basically generate $16.7 billion because of what it will generate in new economic activity, by using alternative fuels. I do applaud the former chairman of the Energy Committee, the other Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, because he did get the ball rolling with the last Energy bill, getting us focused on incentives for renewable energy. My State probably has taken more advantage of that than just about any other State in the variety of products that we are producing. We now have, in some of the communities of our State, the alternative generation community--whether it is wind or solar or alternative fuels. They are actually out there producing large quantities of cheaper electricity for the grid, and they are also becoming some of the largest employers in some of our rural communities. From an economic development perspective, it is working. In fact, one analysis on a national level says the clean energy strategy could generate as much as $700 billion in economic activity and create 5 million new jobs. That is not just on this particular Bingaman amendment proposal but the whole package, of which this is a symbol of the kinds of activities that could be done with our electricity grid. Let me say something about other sources because we keep hearing, again, about wind and solar. This is a lot about biomass. I am a big believer that we are going to see a lot of biomass generation across this country--whether you are talking about switch grass or whether you are talking about using waste to supply new electricity. Two major industries just came by my office--one a big timber interest and another a big existing oil company--talking about how they are going to diversify in Southern States on biomass. I know of many investments in the southern parts of our country in biomass, so I expect to see a lot of jobs created in the southern region of the United States from biomass. We have to push forward in saying we as a nation want to see a percentage of our electricity grid from that biomass--not just solar, not just wind, but from that biomass. To me, this is a great opportunity to do that. One cost that no one is talking about, because no one has put a price on it, is the future cost of continuing to rely, with our electricity grid, on CO2 emittance and the cost to our environment of relying on coal and some of our other generation sources in this issue. I know my colleagues are working on what we think the cost of that will be to future generations. But what is clear when you look at this debate is that part of our clean energy policy, when the electricity grid diversifies off of the more expensive products that we know are going to go up, like natural gas, it creates more jobs in the short term and diversifies our portfolio, driving down the demand for natural gas and helping us on supply. It also helps us with that hidden cost that we all are actually paying in the pollution of our current electricity grid. It is helping individual regional economies grow. I think the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, has put forth a great proposal on 15 percent. Let's make sure we take this stance so we let Americans know we don't think the existing energy stream is what we are going to saddle them with for the future. The American people believe alternative fuel can help us off of this dependence we have right now on fossil fuel, and they believe its development will be cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient for us in the future. But we have to show them the Senate gets it and understands and is willing to set that goal into Federal statute. I hope the President will also join in this effort because the President, as Governor of Texas, implemented a similar mandate in Texas. I think it worked very well for them so I hope he will lend his support; come up to the Hill and encourage people that the high cost of natural gas on our farmers, on our businesses, is something we are not going to tolerate, its continuing to rise is something we are not going to tolerate. We are going to diversify off of that, protect consumers, and give them alternative fuel sources to supply our electricity grid. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 with my colleague Senator Kerry, This comprehensive legislation strengthens and builds upon the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. Congress passed OPA 90 shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound, the largest spill in U.S, history. OPA 90 revolutionized oilspill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank or improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. It is important to recognize that we have come a long way since OPA 90. This is especially true in my home State of Washington. The Coast Guard's District 13 leads the Nation in oilspill prevention and works closely with the State of Washington, tribal governments, and industry. While we recognize the good work that is already being carried out in Washington and elsewhere, we must also look to continually improve our ability to prevent and respond to oilspills. While the probability of a major oilspill has been greatly reduced since OPA 90, the potential impact of such a spill is now greater than ever. According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oilspills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In 1992, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil; in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons, and a significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In 2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and 1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. Furthermore, even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the Exxon Valdez can be devastating. Again, to use examples from Washington State: endangered species like salmon and southern resident orca whales are increasingly vulnerable to the acute and chronic impacts of an oilspill. We have a National Marine Sanctuary off our coast that demands stepped-up protection, and we must take care to hold up our trust obligations to treaty tribes whose usual and accustomed fishing grounds would be devastated by a major spill. This is all to say that we must factor the consequence major spill into our equations for risk. My colleagues from around the country can, I am sure, point to similar examples. In August of 2005, I chaired a Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard field hearing in Seattle. This hearing focused on improving our oil pollution prevention and response capabilities. As a result of testimony from that hearing and conversations with the Coast Guard and other stakeholders, I introduced the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 last March. The bill I introduce today, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, updates that effort and includes additional provisions. New provisions include a requirement that the Coast Guard notify States and tribal governments of maritime incidents in Federal waters that have the potential to impact state resources. The bill would also atlthorize the Coast Guard to train and work with qualified State vessel inspectors to bolster their existing ability to inspect vessels in port. Other new provisions include a requirement for the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations allowing vessel owners to form nonprofit cooperatives to streamline their compliance with vessel response plan requirements. Also new is an authorization for an education and outreach grant program to prevent the frequency of small spills that occur from recreational vessels. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 retains key provisions from last year's bill that address a number of areas to improve prevention and response. First, my bill directs the Coast Guard to finalize all rulemakings remaining from OPA 90 within 18 months. Remaining OPA 90 rules include the critical salvage and firefighting requirements, which would establish a national network of salvage and response vessels and equipment capable of assisting ships in distress. Implementation of the salvage and firefighting rule has been consistently pushed back, most recently in February of this year. It has been 17 years since the passage of OPA 90 and finalizing these rules in a timely manner will greatly improve our prevention and response capabilities. Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oilspills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oilspills from vessels as well as ``near-misses.'' It would require the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high- risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. My bill would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oilspills from oil transfers. It would also make companies that knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010 ``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such contracts. Of particular importance to my State, the bill would provide a mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oilspill 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'' for Puget Sound to make westerly boundary begin at the entrance to the strait. This change would require oilspill response equipment to be stationed along the entire strait and not just east of the current line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would require improved coordination with federally recognized tribes on oilspill prevention, preparedness, and response. The bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the oilspill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Dalco Passage Oilspill, and provide $1 million annually to support the council's important work. Finally, this bill would reiterate an OPA 90 directive for the Coast Guard and Department of State to enter into negotiations with Canada to ensure tug escorts for all tank ships with a capacity greater than 40,000 dead weight tons in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and Haro Strait. The slow response to the oilspill in Daleo Passage in the Puget Sound was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would reinvigorate a Federal research program on oilspill prevention, detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of oilspills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations. Oilspill prevention and response is timely for Congress to consider because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Hawaii, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, nontank vessels, and oil transfer operations. One thing we have learned from these spills is that prevention is more cost-effective than cleaning up oil once it is released into the environment. We have also learned that although double hulls and redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oilspills. The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and respond to oilspills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 with my colleague Senator Kerry, This comprehensive legislation strengthens and builds upon the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. Congress passed OPA 90 shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound, the largest spill in U.S, history. OPA 90 revolutionized oilspill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank or improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. It is important to recognize that we have come a long way since OPA 90. This is especially true in my home State of Washington. The Coast Guard's District 13 leads the Nation in oilspill prevention and works closely with the State of Washington, tribal governments, and industry. While we recognize the good work that is already being carried out in Washington and elsewhere, we must also look to continually improve our ability to prevent and respond to oilspills. While the probability of a major oilspill has been greatly reduced since OPA 90, the potential impact of such a spill is now greater than ever. According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oilspills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In 1992, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil; in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons, and a significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In 2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and 1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. Furthermore, even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the Exxon Valdez can be devastating. Again, to use examples from Washington State: endangered species like salmon and southern resident orca whales are increasingly vulnerable to the acute and chronic impacts of an oilspill. We have a National Marine Sanctuary off our coast that demands stepped-up protection, and we must take care to hold up our trust obligations to treaty tribes whose usual and accustomed fishing grounds would be devastated by a major spill. This is all to say that we must factor the consequence major spill into our equations for risk. My colleagues from around the country can, I am sure, point to similar examples. In August of 2005, I chaired a Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard field hearing in Seattle. This hearing focused on improving our oil pollution prevention and response capabilities. As a result of testimony from that hearing and conversations with the Coast Guard and other stakeholders, I introduced the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 last March. The bill I introduce today, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, updates that effort and includes additional provisions. New provisions include a requirement that the Coast Guard notify States and tribal governments of maritime incidents in Federal waters that have the potential to impact state resources. The bill would also atlthorize the Coast Guard to train and work with qualified State vessel inspectors to bolster their existing ability to inspect vessels in port. Other new provisions include a requirement for the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations allowing vessel owners to form nonprofit cooperatives to streamline their compliance with vessel response plan requirements. Also new is an authorization for an education and outreach grant program to prevent the frequency of small spills that occur from recreational vessels. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 retains key provisions from last year's bill that address a number of areas to improve prevention and response. First, my bill directs the Coast Guard to finalize all rulemakings remaining from OPA 90 within 18 months. Remaining OPA 90 rules include the critical salvage and firefighting requirements, which would establish a national network of salvage and response vessels and equipment capable of assisting ships in distress. Implementation of the salvage and firefighting rule has been consistently pushed back, most recently in February of this year. It has been 17 years since the passage of OPA 90 and finalizing these rules in a timely manner will greatly improve our prevention and response capabilities. Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oilspills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oilspills from vessels as well as ``near-misses.'' It would require the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high- risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. My bill would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oilspills from oil transfers. It would also make companies that knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010 ``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such contracts. Of particular importance to my State, the bill would provide a mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oilspill 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'' for Puget Sound to make westerly boundary begin at the entrance to the strait. This change would require oilspill response equipment to be stationed along the entire strait and not just east of the current line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would require improved coordination with federally recognized tribes on oilspill prevention, preparedness, and response. The bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the oilspill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Dalco Passage Oilspill, and provide $1 million annually to support the council's important work. Finally, this bill would reiterate an OPA 90 directive for the Coast Guard and Department of State to enter into negotiations with Canada to ensure tug escorts for all tank ships with a capacity greater than 40,000 dead weight tons in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and Haro Strait. The slow response to the oilspill in Daleo Passage in the Puget Sound was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would reinvigorate a Federal research program on oilspill prevention, detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of oilspills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations. Oilspill prevention and response is timely for Congress to consider because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Hawaii, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, nontank vessels, and oil transfer operations. One thing we have learned from these spills is that prevention is more cost-effective than cleaning up oil once it is released into the environment. We have also learned that although double hulls and redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oilspills. The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and respond to oilspills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak against this amendment. I have been listening to the debate. While I think it is very important we move forward in our country on a new energy policy and new direction, I think we must do so in a safe, responsible way. That is, whatever we are doing, we need to keep our environmental laws and processes in place: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Water Act, the Conservation Resource and Recovery Act--all the things that are very important to our country and to our environment. I think we are hearing a lot about refinery and refinery capacity. It reminds me of the electricity crisis we had in the West, starting in 2000-2001, when everybody blamed it on the fact the environmental laws stopped the ability to produce supply. When all was said and done, we found out it wasn't that; in fact, it was actually the manipulation of supply. So I think it is very important we move forward on new refinery capacity. In fact, in the last several years, there have been almost 140, either built or in the process of being built, new ethanol refineries. So they have had no trouble moving ahead, planning new economic development, job creation, and alternative fuel that is going to help deliver competition at the pump for fossil fuel. In my State, a new biodiesel facility was undertaken and has been in the development stages. I think they will actually be producing and exporting that product sometime this year. They are going to produce 100 million gallons of biodiesel in this next year--20 years, 12 months. That is more capacity of biodiesel than was produced in the whole United States from a variety of sources. This is a very aggressive effort of building alternative fuel refineries. Let's be honest, God only gave the United States 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, so the notion that somehow we are going to drill our way with fossil fuel to get off this foreign oil addiction is not going to happen. But we do not have to throw out our environmental laws to produce alternative fuel. We are in the process of doing alternative fuel. If someone wants to meet all the environmental standards and build a new fossil fuel refinery, I am not opposed to that, but I want people to be aware that this is what is at the heart of this amendment, to throw out these environmental values that everybody else in America wants to live by if they want to have economic development. Why should the oil industry receive this particular privilege of waiving environmental statutes, just to have that benefit? Let's keep in mind that alternative fuels are making those commitments, meeting those environmental standards, and have produced 140--either underway today or in the process, through the permit process--to develop 140 new alternative fuel refineries. That is progress in America and we should keep going. But we do not need this amendment to do that. I ask unanimous consent that there be 6 minutes equally divided for debate, with Senator Inhofe controlling the final 3 minutes.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor, like many of my colleagues today, to talk about the direction--I should say new direction--we need in our energy policy. I know the President of the United States is coming up to meet with my Republican colleagues for lunch today and to talk about both immigration and energy policy. I hope the President will emphasize how important it is we get an energy bill but certainly that we get an energy bill that sets a new direction in America. Obviously, the history and strength of our Nation lies in our ability to continually invent new ways of doing things. We are great as a nation in doing that. Whether it is building the most reliable electricity grid in the world, laying down a massive Interstate System, or helping to create the Internet, our people have marched forward in new, breathtaking directions. These achievements have historically provided our Nation with immense prosperity and a quality of life we all cherish. The problem is our basic energy and transportation system is 50 to 100 years old. Today, we are faced with two choices: whether we are going to continue to operate the energy system that is a relic of the past century or we are going to create a new roadmap for the future that will allow Americans to again be global energy leaders. It is that simple. Some will say our energy and transportation system is working fine and we should leave it the way it is. We have a lot of special interests swirling around Washington, DC, right now hoping we do not make much progress. But I would say we do not have to look any further than the pocketbook of Americans to know we are feeling severe impacts on our economy and our environment, and that doing nothing is not an option. We are selling out too much in saying we cannot make aggressive change. We are shelling out too much to fill up our gas tanks, and our local communities are losing too many jobs. All the while, we sacrifice more and more what is an engine to the U.S. economy; that is, affordable energy supply. We cannot continue to drive forward only looking in the rearview mirror and saying we are going to be dependent on foreign oil. We need to do better. Over 100 years ago, many of our homes were lit with kerosene. If you think about the early days, we traveled not by automobile but by foot or on horseback. Then a new industrial revolution took place, and it was, as the Presiding Officer knows, driven by newly invented coal- powered steam engines. It played an incredible part in our country's history. Then a number of scrappy entrepreneurs came along, people such as Colonel Drake in Pennsylvania, who drilled the first oil well. Americans went on to capitalize on that new fuel to power our industry and provide great mobility for our people in this Nation. Other entrepreneurs, such as Thomas Edison and his colleagues, were working on ways to harness electricity for light, sound, telephones, and transportation. Shortly after that, Charles Baker and his daughter switched on the first electric power generation in the Northwest--something that still provides cheap, affordable electricity to us in the Northwest. Well, today it is time for a set of new, scrappy entrepreneurs, those who are going to lead in industry and help us get ready for a new energy infrastructure, and to take our country in a new direction. Improvements and changes are desperately needed to retain our standard of living and to make the United States an energy leader again. Just like 100 years ago, these entrepreneurs are working today throughout our Nation. Farmers, such as those in Minnesota, are now supplementing their income from farm products by putting wind generation on their farms. A California professor is inventing new technology to enable the manufacture, in any industrial park, of new alternative fuel from simple plant material. In Spokane, WA, energy investors are focused on building a smart electricity grid that is going to allow consumers to save more. What the Government did at the dawn of the last century was to help in the energy transformation. What we need to do today is to enable this energy transformation to take our country in a new direction. We need to embrace the new technologies that keep more energy dollars in America's pocketbook. The next chapter in American's energy story needs to be less about record oil profits and more about how we are going to help the American consumer keep energy dollars here in America and grow the American economy. It is time Congress and the Federal Government start leading. The longer we put up with the status quo, the farther and farther behind our people and businesses are going to fall, and the more unconscionable the profits oil companies and foreign interests make, the more challenging it is for the United States environmentally, internationally, and economically. America's goal--here on the floor of the Senate, our role as a Government entity--should be to set the goals where our Nation needs to go and how our constituents will benefit. We should not pick technology winners or losers, but we should make sure there is a level playing field so there is new investment in energy strategies. We are here to put those elements in place that will help catapult America into being an energy leader. I know many of my colleagues have talked about energy independence. But we are talking about keeping energy dollars in America's pocketbook. I say that because so many Americans are feeling the price at the pump. Right now, they are feeling that price at the pump because America spends $291 billion per year on importing foreign oil. Over 60 percent of our total consumption is coming from foreign sources, and that is only going to increase. The production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 would help us reduce foreign imports by over 1 million barrels a day. That is why this underlying legislation is so important. But what should our goal be? Our goal should be a 20-percent reduction in gasoline consumption by 2017. That is what this underlying bill gets at, and that would help consumers achieve a $2.50-per-barrel reduction in world oil prices because the United States would get into the homegrown fuel business. But we have to do more than just alternative fuel; we have to become more fuel efficient. That is why this legislation is so important, because it would actually help us save $25 billion annually to consumers from raising the fuel efficiency standard of automobiles from the current 25 miles per gallon today to 35 miles per gallon. I know this will be one of the most contentious votes on the Senate floor: whether we have the will to raise fuel efficiency standards for our entire automobile fleet in the United States. But it is the fuel efficiency that will help deliver America that $25 billion in annual savings to consumers and help us achieve that 20 percent savings in foreign oil consumption. We need to keep putting more energy dollars into America's pocketbook by other means of efficiencies. The efficiencies in this legislation push for standards for appliances, to help make a smart electricity grid that will help us in delivering distributed generation; that is, generation closer to home, so we are not building a new powerplant and transporting that energy supply across several States or across sections of America but, instead, getting generation built and delivered in the closest areas to the consumers. Smart electricity grids and efficient technology will help us save $12 billion in improved efficiency for the U.S. household, which will save U.S. consumers about $100. These are important improvements. They may not sound like the sexiest parts of our energy package, but there are real dollars and real savings here for America in the long run. If we just take what California did as a State over the last several years--they, by mandating building codes and energy efficiency, reduced their energy consumption by about 20 percent and have one of the best energy efficiency systems in the Nation, and we in the Federal Government should follow. We should follow as a Federal Government by also achieving energy efficiency for the taxpayers because the U.S. Government is our largest energy user. The fact is, we have over 500,000 buildings in the United States. Making them more energy efficient would give us a 30-percent reduction in the Federal energy use. The President should lead that charge. But we are making sure in this underlying bill that we are mandating new energy efficiency titles led by my colleagues, Senator Boxer and Senator Bingaman, to make sure the taxpayers will get almost $4 billion in annual savings if we achieve these Federal energy efficiencies. Also, we must protect the consumers from price spikes. We all know that consumers have paid an increased price at the pump and that gas prices are at an alltime high related to where they were just 5 years ago. This underlying bill makes price gouging--the manipulation of energy prices--a Federal crime. To try to manipulate supply and artificially impact markets is something that should have strong criminal penalties, and that is what this underlying legislation does. We also make sure we are making the right technology investments. I said earlier that technology could help the United States achieve greater efficiency and keep more energy dollars in America's pocketbook. We believe that over $700 billion in increased economic activity can be the result of investment in good energy technology. It could also create more than 5 million jobs here in the United States by 2025. But that means taking the investments that are given to the oil industry now, which is making record profits, and instead investing them in new energy technology that will lead to job creation and energy savings. I know that in the Finance Committee we will be discussing these ideas in the very near future, and I hope they can be implemented with the underlying bill we are going to be considering in the next 2 weeks. But we have to keep in mind, as we look at the alternatives for creating energy, that we have to be smart about protecting our environment. We want to keep more energy dollars in the pockets of the American consumers and American businesses, but we will not achieve that if we look for solutions that are actually going to add to our CO2 problems in the United States. Let's be clear: There are great technologies that will help us in reducing greenhouse emissions. There are others that will be less appealing. I know it will be hard for my colleagues in areas where technology has not yet reached this point to be a market driver. More work needs to be done. But we should not be, in looking at our incentive policies, chasing technology that will not help us achieve the leadership the United States would like to see in fuel technology. We know that cellulosic ethanol, which is the goal of this underlying bill--and I was proud, in the 2005 act, to write the cellulosic mandate as part of the underlying legislation. Cellulosic--plant-based ethanol--plant-based ethanol from gasoline today would be a 90-percent reduction in our CO2 footprint. We want to go in that direction as a nation, using plants to create a fuel source for America. We want to do that not only for what it achieves for us in reduction of CO2 but because it also doesn't compete with our food source in America and drive up food prices. Biodiesel, another great reduction in greenhouse impact at 67 percent, is an area in which we can, for our large industrial users, provide an alternative fuel to help our economy grow. Sugar-based ethanol, at 56 percent, as the country of Brazil is doing, is again a reduction in the CO2 and an opportunity to scale a technology to help an entire nation. We also know that for us, electricity, or plug-in hybrids, could see a 46-percent reduction. We know we will have a very interesting debate on the Senate floor about corn-based ethanol, and we will have to be honest about where corn-based ethanol can take us in the future. It is not the alternative fuel that will help drive our economy. We know corn-based ethanol will not be the technology that continues to have the opportunities for us that these other advanced fuels do. So we need to be smart about the investment strategy. I need to say a little about the coal to liquid or carbon sequestration issues. That technology does not yet exist for the breakthrough we would like to see. It will actually add--add--to our CO2 emissions if people deploy this technology today as a solution for us in trying to get off foreign oil. So we need to be smart about our plans. We need to make sure we are keeping more energy dollars in America's pocketbook. We need to make sure we get on to this next chapter in American history and make sure we are not continuing 3 years from now to talk about record oil prices but about how American consumers are paying less at the pump, getting more alternatives, and that new jobs are created by the new direction in an energy economy we are about to see unfold. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the high gas prices we are seeing all over America and certainly on the west coast, where Washington State is paying some of the highest gas prices in the Nation. My point this morning is that we are approaching the Memorial Day weekend in which Americans will be remembering loved one and wanting to spend time with their families, but this Memorial Day might go on record as having the highest gas prices in our Nation's history. That means we in the Senate need to act on energy legislation that not only diversifies us off fossil fuels into more renewables and alternative fuels, as well as pass energy conservation measures, it also means we need to protect consumers with a strong bill that makes price gouging and market manipulation of energy markets illegal. We need to assure that there are tough Federal penalties on the books so that any kind of market manipulations will be met with fines and penalties. I know many people think this is all just about supply and demand. It is pretty hard to tell the people of Washington State it is just about supply and demand when we have five refineries in the State of Washington and most of our oil comes from Alaska. And people say we are an isolated market. In fact, there are schools in our State that are feeling the brunt. One of the school districts in the Yakima Valley, where buses travel more than 2,200 miles each day, will have to spend about $125,000 more this year on fuel. That is revenue which could go to books or hiring teachers or other needs for the school. In Spokane, the volunteers for Meals on Wheels, which usually delivers 350 meals a day to homebound elderly and disabled residents, are having to cut back on their routes. Another constituent called the office to say he was having trouble paying for gas he needed to make the 80-mile round trip to the Tri-Cities to get kidney dialysis for his wife. That loving husband said he was either going to have to quit his job or move closer to the facility so they could avoid paying high prices of gasoline. So while the pundits are talking about just supply and demand, my constituents and many constituents across this country are feeling the pain at the pump. It is time that we act and pass the Cantwell-Smith bill, which we will have a chance to do when we return after the Memorial Day recess. This legislation is based on a New York law that has been held up in the courts and gives the Federal Trade Commission the ability to do the job that is needed to investigate potential market manipulation and price gouging. Many of the statutes that are on our books today are inadequate for looking at markets when there is a tight supply. I heard a great deal about supply and demand during the Western energy crisis. For probably my entire first year in office, that is all we heard about from various people who wanted to say that the Enron problems were nothing more than supply and demand and the failure to build more capacity. In fact, when it came down to it, there was a lot more to this question than lack of supply in California. It turned out that there were elaborate schemes to manipulate energy markets, with names such as Death Star, Get Shorty, Fat Boy, schemes in which people deliberately took supply off line or manipulated it just to drive up prices by suppressing supply. My colleagues have worked hard in the last several years to put into statute protections for consumers to make sure electricity and natural gas markets are not manipulated. This law is based on the same protections the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the SEC use to make sure there is not manipulation in those markets. Why not have the same protection for consumers as it relates to oil and gasoline markets? I hope that when we return, we will give great attention to this issue and not be swayed by those who think this is a simple market- demand issue. If we want to protect the consumers of this country, we will pass a strong law that gives the ability for Federal regulators to do their job. I believe there are real U.S. jobs, pensions, and businesses on the line if we do not act and act aggressively. The American people want to know that the Senate is going to stand up and do something about these record gas prices. They want to know that they are paying a fair and market-based rate for fuel and that they will continue to have the transparency in oil markets to make sure prices are reasonable and affordable, and they want to be sure we are empowering the right people to make sure an investigation takes place. As I said, there is much that we need to do in the near term and the long term for our energy markets to diversify and to give consumers real choice at the pump, to make sure we are investing in conservation and fuel efficiency. But in the meantime, with tight energy markets, we need to make sure we are giving consumers the protection they need and to pass this legislation when we return after the recess. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I am coming to the floor this morning to talk about energy policy. I know the Presiding Officer very much understands the importance of energy policy and has represented a State in a region of the country that has been a key component to the U.S. energy strategy. My own State, Washington State, with our long history, with our hydro system, is starting to become a leader in alternative energy and certainly in renewable energy. But I rise today to talk about the beginning of the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue that is an ongoing bilateral forum between the United States and China. I think it will help lay the foundation for important, productive, and mutually beneficial ties between our two countries. I appreciate that Treasury Secretary Paulson and Vice Premier Wu are starting that discussion today. I hope energy will be among the issues they talk about. I am under no illusion that we have big challenges in working with China and particularly in embracing a concept I believe is very strategic to how the United States operates in a global economy, that is ``coopetition''--you look at those with whom you are competing and also look for ways in which you can cooperate and have strategic benefits by working together. I think that ``coopetition'' is exactly the policy we ought to embrace with China as it relates to energy, and it is very important we use this Strategic Economic Dialogue to move forward on that issue. I know they are going to talk about lots of different issues. It is not as if Washington State agrees with China on all issues. I know the currency issue will be part of the discussion. I know there are intellectual property rights and agricultural issues, there are restrictions on Washington products, and many things that will be discussed as part of a larger economic dialogue. But I think it is important to understand the Washington State experience. If you juxtapose our experience to that of the United States, and the U.S. trade imbalance with China, I venture to say Washington State almost has a trade surplus with China. That is, if you look at various aspects of our economic numbers, Washington State and China have been good trading partners. Back last year, China was the largest export market for Washington State. We sent $6.8 billion in exports to China. Approximately two- thirds of Washington State's agricultural exports went to Asia and 17 percent to China: apples, potatoes, cherries, and a variety of other products. And Washington State companies have been aggressive at pursuing opportunities in China for a long time. I don't know if it is the proximity of our State to China and the fact that we both look to the Pacific, I don't know if it is the large Chinese-American population that resides in the State, or just the long cultural history on which we continue to build. But Washington State companies have been aggressively pursuing opportunities in China for years. In fact, Boeing signed its first contract with the Chinese Government for 10 707 jetliners in 1972, shortly after President Nixon made his first visit there. It is amazing that today 60 percent of China's commercial aircraft are Boeing planes. That relationship has grown over a long period of time, and we have benefited. In fact, in 2006 China purchased $7.7 billion dollars' worth of Boeing planes. That represents about 112 orders from different Chinese airlines. Today China is one of the largest opportunities for Boeing. Some have estimated the commercial aircraft market could be as large as $280 billion. When we look at these issues, we look at the cooperation and the economic opportunity that has existed for our State. Microsoft is another example. It first opened an office in Beijing in 1992. It is no surprise, when President Hu was visiting the United States, he actually came to Everett and Seattle and Redmond and had an opportunity to be hosted by Bill Gates. Microsoft is benefiting greatly from the sales of computers and legally licensed software in China. More recently, Starbucks has launched hundreds of stores in China. Who would have thought that a coffee company would go into a tea- drinking country and have so much success. But China represents roughly 20 percent of the new international store growth for Starbucks. It has become Starbucks' most important foreign market. My point in saying this is that I hope, as we have a debate about currency--and I think it is important that we have a debate about currency--that we also realize that China is a market. It is a market for U.S. products. No export sector could be of greater interest, I believe, than the opportunity in the energy and environmental areas. Today, China accounts for about 40 percent of the increase in world oil demand. The number of passenger vehicles on China's roads has tripled since 2001 and may equal the United States by 2030. The Chinese face this mass internal transformation from growth and modernization. We have the opportunity to help them with that transition. They are trying to keep pace. In fact, China is adding one huge 1,000-megawatt, coal-fired plant to its grid each week. That is like adding enough capacity every year to serve the entire country of Spain. But even with this new capacity, their country is without predictable electricity. In 2004, China had power shortages in 24 of its 31 provinces and autonomous regions, so they are dealing with a challenge to deliver energy to various parts of their country. What is the opportunity? The International Energy Agency estimated that China will spend $2.3 trillion over the next 25 years just to meet its growing energy demands, and that modernizing its electricity grid will require about $35 billion annually for the foreseeable future. That is where American technology can come in; that is where we can seek new opportunities for U.S. companies. In fact, the same International Energy Agency has talked about the fact that, if we institute demand-side management programs where we can leverage modernizing the electricity grid, we can show that investments of $700 billion in the demand side could avoid almost $1.5 trillion in additional generation, transmission, and distribution costs in China between now and 2030. That is an interesting number. By the United States partnering with China, we would have an opportunity to help them save on their energy costs. What does that mean for us as far as the great opportunity? It means increasing exports of U.S. goods and services. It means U.S. opportunities to grow in the areas that I have mentioned. Good opportunities already exist in aerospace and software and coffee but they also can emerge in the energy and environmental sectors. It is interesting to think that China realizes that they have a challenge and that they are trying to diversify into an array of more clean energy sources, including wind, solar, biofuels, and clean coal. They are trying to increase productivity and cost savings associated with modernizing the electricity grid. I happened to visit Beijing last November with a group of Washington State business leaders that were there to promote long-term opportunities for us to work together. It was then that I realized how much the Chinese Government had embraced and was committed to its goal of cutting energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20 percent by 2010. For that very short period of time they have tremendous energy goals that we, the United States, can help them meet. Modernizing the domestic energy infrastructure will require an estimated $35 billion a year. Again, that is an opportunity for the United States, exporting existing U.S. products and services, that could help us turn around the trade imbalance. In a speech last month, Premier Wen acknowledged that China must focus on energy conservation and emission reduction in order to both develop the economy and protect the environment. I think this is an opportunity that is before us now as we are part of the Strategic Economic Dialogue with China. Increased U.S.-China cooperation on energy and environment would have tremendous economic, environmental, and security benefits for both our nations. It would help make U.S. companies better positioned for economic opportunities both inside and outside China as we develop standards associated with our energy policy. I recently sent a bipartisan letter to the President asking for a comprehensive U.S.-China energy policy and bilateral energy summit. I am proud to say that the bipartisan letter, signed by several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Senator Smith, Senator Murkowski, Senator Voinovich--also was signed by the four chairs of important committees--the Energy Committee, Finance Committee, Foreign Relations, and Homeland Security Committee--because I believe that they agree that this is an important opportunity for the U.S. and China to work together. In fact, we said, in sending the letter to the President: The way we approach global energy issues will affect the international economy and the world's environment for decades to come. A bilateral U.S.-China energy policy and a summit between our nations to focus on ways to cooperate on energy issues would have tremendous economic benefits for both our nations. I hope as the Strategic Economic Dialogue goes forward this week that a great deal of focus will be placed on energy. When one of my predecessors, Warren Magnuson, went to China, he said, ``pretending 700 million people in the world do not exist is the wrong approach.'' Today it is 1.3 billion people. It is time to understand China's internal transformation, our own global energy needs, and our nations' evolving relationship. It is time to see the great promise in our common interests and time to work together on shared challenges and opportunities involving energy and the environment. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1415, introduced earlier today by Senator Reid, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to H. Con. Res. 62.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 204, which was submitted earlier today.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 123, just received from the House and is at the desk.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 79, just received from the House and is at the desk.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 205, which was submitted earlier today.