Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe is an important component of comprehensive energy policy. In order to transition away from an overreliance on fossil fuels, we must promote investments in clean energy generation using renewable resources and reduce the growth in demand for energy by stressing efficiency. I think every Member of the Senate recognizes that while there is no single technological silver bullet for our energy problems, there are many emerging technologies that if adopted and deployed could go a long way in meeting our vexing energy security and climate challenges. We also know that Government can play a key role setting technology standards and clean energy goals, but shifting our Nation's and the world's energy system to clean energy alternatives will take substantial private sector investment. Here, too, the Government can play a key role by enabling the market conditions that will take the technology from the laboratory and turn it into fully operational energy producing facilities. A number of reports have suggested that private investment in energy technologies is on the rise. While estimates vary widely, New Energy Finance has reported that 1,246 private equity funds put more than $70 billion into clean energy technologies in 2006--a 43-percent increase relative to 2005. Similarly, a survey conducted late last year by the National Venture Capital Association found that more than 90 percent of respondents expect to increase investment in the energy sector in 2007. This is a unique time. There is growing consensus that our Nation's energy demands need to be better and more smartly managed and, more importantly, consensus that those growing energy demands should be met using clean, renewable energy resources. The Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007, which I introduce along with my colleagues, Senators Gordon Smith and John Kerry, responds to the clear message that was delivered to both the Senate Energy and Senate Finance Committees by businesses that are on the cutting edge in this area. What we heard from the renewable energy community and the investment community is that what they need most is some certainty in the Tax Code. This type of Federal assistance will support the needed long-term investments that ultimately will drive down the costs of electricity from renewable sources. Once the market for these new technologies is up and running, such facilities will be economically self-sustaining and profitable. Our legislation adheres to the following principles: Certainty. We put the existing tax incentives in place long enough to drive investment dollars so these new technologies can be commercialized. The core of this bill is a 5-year extension and modification of the production tax credit. This tax credit is designed to help businesses and utilities diversify their sources of energy and promote energy production using biomass, wind power, hydropower, geothermal power, and other clean, renewable resources. In addition, we extend for 8 years the investment tax credit that is so important in encouraging the large upfront outlay of capital that is required for solar and fuel cell power plants. Technological neutrality. This bill levels the playing field by providing an incentive to both thermal energy production and electricity production that use renewable resources. It also modifies the tax credits to increase the incentive effect for all renewable technologies that can produce energy with zero carbon emissions. Parity between investor-owned utilities and consumer-owned public power utilities. The bill provides a powerful, complementary incentive through the Clean Renewable Energy Bond Program so that public power and consumer-owned utilities that cannot benefit from tax credits are not financially disadvantaged when they invest in renewable facilities. Public power utilities are required to meet State renewable portfolio standards in the same way as investor-owned utilities, and Government should provide comparable financial incentives so that ultimately the cost of electricity can be reduced for all customers. Importance of efficiency. This bill includes provisions that better utilize the incentives in the Tax Code to promote energy efficiency in manufacturing, construction of ``green buildings,'' and more efficient homes. These tax incentives help defray the additional costs associated with using new energy-efficient technologies, systems, and materials to construct and retrofit factories, commercial buildings, and houses in order to reduce energy demand. I know Senator Snowe has done a great deal of work in this area, and I look forward to working with her on these important provisions. Another key component in this regard is an inducement for customers and utilities to upgrade to ``smart meters.'' A ``smart meter'' is a device with an electronic circuit board containing computer chips and a digital communications device. It allows a customer to interact with a utility in real time. This interaction allows the utility to better forecast and manage energy load and the customer can manage his energy use to lower the cost. The electromechanical meter, the device that measures energy use with the little wheels turning inside it that is hooked up to almost every home and business in America, is almost the same as when it was invented in the 1930s, when FDR was President. Inefficient use of energy forces utilities to invest millions in building plants that operate only when energy demand peaks. As a result, the power these plants generate costs far more than power from other sources. This means more expensive power when demand is high. Our bill would allow a faster recovery period for the costs of installing these new ``smart meters,'' which will make it easier for consumers to reduce energy use during these peak periods and shift their energy use to low-demand, low-cost times of the day. We know that we don't have an unlimited pool of Federal resources, and I believe strongly that the Finance Committee should redirect subsidies that historically have propped up the oil and gas industry to now support this new direction in energy policy. Our tax policy here should be driven by our energy policy goals. We cannot make a long-term difference with start-and-stop tax policy. But we must be mindful that after a reasonable period all tax incentives should be reexamined to see whether we have gotten the results we anticipated and whether the marketplace is ready to function on its own. We should focus tax incentives where they will have the greatest impact in helping meet those goals. While this bill seeks to address renewable power and efficiency, I plan to continue working on legislation to effectively align the other incentives in the Tax Code that are designed to promote alternative fuels and vehicles. We all witnessed how innovation in information technologies served as a forceful driver of productivity and economic growth in the recent past. Energy technology innovations now have similar potential to fuel a new wave of economic growth and job creation. I would like to note that this bill has already received the support of the following organizations: American Forest Resource Council; American Public Power Association; Biomass Investment Group; Energy Northwest; Large Public Power Council; Northwest Public Power Association; Southern California Public Power Authority; Solar Energy Industries Association; USA Biomass Power Producers Alliance; Chelan County PUD, Snohomish County PUD, Tacoma Power, and Seattle City Light; Washington Public Utility Districts Association; Simpson Investment Company, Tacoma; National Hydropower Association; Seattle Steam; and TechNet. We have a tremendous opportunity in this Congress to set a new course in energy, environmental, and economic policy for the 21st century, and I hope we aggressively move forward and meet this challenge. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe is an important component of comprehensive energy policy. In order to transition away from an overreliance on fossil fuels, we must promote investments in clean energy generation using renewable resources and reduce the growth in demand for energy by stressing efficiency. I think every Member of the Senate recognizes that while there is no single technological silver bullet for our energy problems, there are many emerging technologies that if adopted and deployed could go a long way in meeting our vexing energy security and climate challenges. We also know that Government can play a key role setting technology standards and clean energy goals, but shifting our Nation's and the world's energy system to clean energy alternatives will take substantial private sector investment. Here, too, the Government can play a key role by enabling the market conditions that will take the technology from the laboratory and turn it into fully operational energy producing facilities. A number of reports have suggested that private investment in energy technologies is on the rise. While estimates vary widely, New Energy Finance has reported that 1,246 private equity funds put more than $70 billion into clean energy technologies in 2006--a 43-percent increase relative to 2005. Similarly, a survey conducted late last year by the National Venture Capital Association found that more than 90 percent of respondents expect to increase investment in the energy sector in 2007. This is a unique time. There is growing consensus that our Nation's energy demands need to be better and more smartly managed and, more importantly, consensus that those growing energy demands should be met using clean, renewable energy resources. The Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007, which I introduce along with my colleagues, Senators Gordon Smith and John Kerry, responds to the clear message that was delivered to both the Senate Energy and Senate Finance Committees by businesses that are on the cutting edge in this area. What we heard from the renewable energy community and the investment community is that what they need most is some certainty in the Tax Code. This type of Federal assistance will support the needed long-term investments that ultimately will drive down the costs of electricity from renewable sources. Once the market for these new technologies is up and running, such facilities will be economically self-sustaining and profitable. Our legislation adheres to the following principles: Certainty. We put the existing tax incentives in place long enough to drive investment dollars so these new technologies can be commercialized. The core of this bill is a 5-year extension and modification of the production tax credit. This tax credit is designed to help businesses and utilities diversify their sources of energy and promote energy production using biomass, wind power, hydropower, geothermal power, and other clean, renewable resources. In addition, we extend for 8 years the investment tax credit that is so important in encouraging the large upfront outlay of capital that is required for solar and fuel cell power plants. Technological neutrality. This bill levels the playing field by providing an incentive to both thermal energy production and electricity production that use renewable resources. It also modifies the tax credits to increase the incentive effect for all renewable technologies that can produce energy with zero carbon emissions. Parity between investor-owned utilities and consumer-owned public power utilities. The bill provides a powerful, complementary incentive through the Clean Renewable Energy Bond Program so that public power and consumer-owned utilities that cannot benefit from tax credits are not financially disadvantaged when they invest in renewable facilities. Public power utilities are required to meet State renewable portfolio standards in the same way as investor-owned utilities, and Government should provide comparable financial incentives so that ultimately the cost of electricity can be reduced for all customers. Importance of efficiency. This bill includes provisions that better utilize the incentives in the Tax Code to promote energy efficiency in manufacturing, construction of ``green buildings,'' and more efficient homes. These tax incentives help defray the additional costs associated with using new energy-efficient technologies, systems, and materials to construct and retrofit factories, commercial buildings, and houses in order to reduce energy demand. I know Senator Snowe has done a great deal of work in this area, and I look forward to working with her on these important provisions. Another key component in this regard is an inducement for customers and utilities to upgrade to ``smart meters.'' A ``smart meter'' is a device with an electronic circuit board containing computer chips and a digital communications device. It allows a customer to interact with a utility in real time. This interaction allows the utility to better forecast and manage energy load and the customer can manage his energy use to lower the cost. The electromechanical meter, the device that measures energy use with the little wheels turning inside it that is hooked up to almost every home and business in America, is almost the same as when it was invented in the 1930s, when FDR was President. Inefficient use of energy forces utilities to invest millions in building plants that operate only when energy demand peaks. As a result, the power these plants generate costs far more than power from other sources. This means more expensive power when demand is high. Our bill would allow a faster recovery period for the costs of installing these new ``smart meters,'' which will make it easier for consumers to reduce energy use during these peak periods and shift their energy use to low-demand, low-cost times of the day. We know that we don't have an unlimited pool of Federal resources, and I believe strongly that the Finance Committee should redirect subsidies that historically have propped up the oil and gas industry to now support this new direction in energy policy. Our tax policy here should be driven by our energy policy goals. We cannot make a long-term difference with start-and-stop tax policy. But we must be mindful that after a reasonable period all tax incentives should be reexamined to see whether we have gotten the results we anticipated and whether the marketplace is ready to function on its own. We should focus tax incentives where they will have the greatest impact in helping meet those goals. While this bill seeks to address renewable power and efficiency, I plan to continue working on legislation to effectively align the other incentives in the Tax Code that are designed to promote alternative fuels and vehicles. We all witnessed how innovation in information technologies served as a forceful driver of productivity and economic growth in the recent past. Energy technology innovations now have similar potential to fuel a new wave of economic growth and job creation. I would like to note that this bill has already received the support of the following organizations: American Forest Resource Council; American Public Power Association; Biomass Investment Group; Energy Northwest; Large Public Power Council; Northwest Public Power Association; Southern California Public Power Authority; Solar Energy Industries Association; USA Biomass Power Producers Alliance; Chelan County PUD, Snohomish County PUD, Tacoma Power, and Seattle City Light; Washington Public Utility Districts Association; Simpson Investment Company, Tacoma; National Hydropower Association; Seattle Steam; and TechNet. We have a tremendous opportunity in this Congress to set a new course in energy, environmental, and economic policy for the 21st century, and I hope we aggressively move forward and meet this challenge. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning with a lot of enthusiasm for the progress we are making in various committees toward an energy policy we can discuss on the Senate floor which will eventually lead us to greater energy independence. I am very excited about this prospect; especially since I participated in the 2005 energy legislation, which was passed with great bipartisan support. We worked together to enact this groundbreaking energy bill in 2005, which greatly benefitted my State by giving tax credits to alternative energy technologies--wind and solar--and aided in the further development and broadened use of biodiesel and including the construction of a 100 million-gallon biodiesel facility in Washington State. There were many great things about the 2005 Energy bill but the fact that stood out to me the most was that it was a bipartisan effort. I do wish that there had been a much more aggressive effort on energy independence then, but I think today we are on the cusp of achieving this important goal. Senator Reid has been very specific since the beginning of this legislative year that he wants energy independence to be a key priority. In fact, there are six different committees that are working on energy legislation today: the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, the Finance Committee, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. All of these committees are working hard on legislation, and more importantly, they are working on legislation in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, two of these committees have reported out significant energy legislation, working across the aisle ensure that we are getting the best ideas onto the Senate floor and continuing to discuss those ideas on which we have not yet been able to reach consensus. Yesterday was undoubtedly a historic day because it marked the first time in 20 years, that we have been able to, in a very bipartisan way, put a CAFE bill on the Senate floor--which I hope we will be discussing soon--that actually increases the fuel efficiency standards of automobiles and hopefully lowers our consumption of foreign oil. If we can move from the current miles-per- gallon standard of 25 miles today to 35 miles in a 10-year period, this would unquestionably be a great accomplishment. Attached to this legislation is also very important consumer protection legislation that provides the Federal Trade Commission the tools it needs to protect consumers against price gouging. With our current statutes, the FTC has the ability to investigate certain cases on the basis of antitrust laws, which are based on whether we think oil companies are colluding to set prices. What we really have to question is whether the companies may be conducting activities that actually take supply offline and thereby decrease the supply, leading to shortages at the pump. Therefore we need to give the FTC the authority it needs through this legislation and make sure consumers are protected. This legislation, as part of a package, was passed unanimously out of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee yesterday. It was the result of a bipartisan effort, led by the work of the chairman, Senator Inouye, and the ranking member, Senator Stevens. Unfortunately certain provision did not make it into the final version of this bill, however I firmly believe that it is a historic and important piece of bipartisan legislation that will come to the Senate floor for all of us to discuss. Just recently, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed another very positive landmark legislation which relates to setting a higher mandate on biofuels. In the last Energy bill we were able to pass, we stipulated that we should have a goal of producing 7\1/2\ billion gallons of biofuel a year by 2012. Both the President and the Congress are trying to achieve a higher goal. In this legislation, that sets the goal that by 2022, we would actually have a mandate of having 36 billion gallons of alternative fuel produced in this country. I firmly believe that this is a realistic goal and an achievable mandate for us, and that it will aid in starting mass-production of alternative fuels in this country. In addition, that legislation had money for what we call a biofuels infrastructure--how we do actually get this product out to the consumer and to the corridors of transportation so the public does not have to worry about where they can fill up their cars. Thanks in part to this legislation we will have the infrastructure to do that. In the Commerce Committee, we also produced legislation focusing on flex-fuel cars so that, by 2015, 80 percent of the cars being driven on our roads will be flex-fueled. These are vehicles that could either use gasoline or an alternative fuel. We have also passed legislation now for studying plug-in hybrids and making sure the plug-in hybrid research continues to move ahead. In the Energy bill, we also included language about carbon sequestration, making sure we move ahead so carbon sequestration becomes a reality. Again, this is an important issue and it is a very important bill to my colleagues in various parts of the country in which we have an ample supply of coal. I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman for working so closely together. That legislation also was passed in a bipartisan effort. It is a great compliment to those two distinguished Senators who worked so closely on the last Energy bill to yet produce another Energy bill. We are in a position to make a very positive impact on what I think is one of the biggest challenges we face, getting off our overdependence on foreign oil and providing sources of cleaner energy. We are well poised to take up that debate here on the Senate floor with this landmark bipartisan legislation out of two different committees. We will have a lot of work to do across the aisle. We still have great opportunities to see legislation out of those other four committees I mentioned that will contribute to this energy package. But we should embrace the opportunity the President laid out in his State of the Union Address when he said that he wanted to make sure we had a higher fuel efficiency standard and that we also set a higher renewable fuel standard, and that is exactly what we are doing now. I personally think we should also set a renewable standard for the amount of electricity we use from our electricity grid to further reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. These are topics that will be debated. I am sure later in the year we will have an important debate about climate change. But for now we are making great progress. I hope my colleagues will focus on the fact that this energy bill gives us another opportunity to work together here on the Senate floor and put real energy solutions before the American public. Right now, with gas prices reaching $4, Americans want to know we are going to have an aggressive policy, not only giving them consumer protections but better planning for the future so our economy can benefit from alternative sources of fuel. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an investment program in lifelong education for our service members and veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill is consistently cited as an important reason people join the military and continues to be one of the most important benefits provided for military service today. There is no reason why 100 percent of our active duty, selected reserve, and veteran servicemembers should not have the opportunity to take advantage of their earned education benefits. That is why I'm reintroducing the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007, which would allow Montgomery GI Bill participants an unlimited amount of time to use their earned benefits. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, is again joining me in sponsoring this legislation and that Senator Sherrod Brown has also signed on to further extend MGIB benefits. The MGIB is a program that provides up to 36 months of education benefits for educational opportunities ranging from college to apprenticeship and job training, and even flight training. Upon enlistment, the GI Bill also requires service members to contribute $100 per month for their first 12 months of services. Basically, the MGIB is divided into two programs. One program targets active duty and veteran members, paying over $1,000 per month to qualified students. That's more than $36,000 for school. The other is directed at the Selected Reserve. This program provides educational benefits of $288 per month, for a total of $10,368. If recruits are overwhelmingly declaring that education opportunity under the GI Bill is the key incentive for them to join the military, then it makes sense that most--if not all--of our troops, who signed up for the program, would also be cashing in on their benefits. But reports show that the majority, 40 to 60 percent, do not actually use the benefits they have earned. Currently, MGIB participants have up to 10 years from their release date from the military to use their earned education benefits. Members of the Selected Reserve are able to use their MGIB benefit for 14 years. However, that means your earned education benefits expire if you don't use the within the required timeframe, closing your window of opportunity to go to school or finish your college education. Plus, you lose the $1,200 dedicated for your GI Bill during your first year of enlistment. Originally, the intent of 1944 GI Bill of Rights was to help veterans successfully transition back into civilian life as education is the key to employment opportunities. Looking back now, we know that the GI Bill opened the door to higher education, helping millions of service members and veterans who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance to pay for college. That is, servicemembers benefited from the GI Bill because they used the payments within the 10 and 14 year limitation. But there are many others who did not use their earned education benefits within that timeframe. For example, after leaving the military, some servicemembers postponed going to school because they had to go straight to work in order to support their family. Others unfortunately, were either homeless or incarcerated for long periods of time due to disability associated with military service, but are now ready to move forward in their lives, and going back to school is their first step. In some cases, due to random life circumstances, some people just lost track of time. Additionally, because of misinformation and bureaucratic language, the GI Bill is known as a complicated program to navigate. A constituent of mine, Ruben Ruelas--who is a Local Veterans Employment Representative, LVER, for the WorkSource in Wenatchee, Washington, wrote to me saying, ``It's been my experience that most people don't know what they want to do in life or are placed in situations where, due to changing economic times, they are displaced and need further education and training to compete for jobs. But most don't have access to training resources to do so.'' In terms of Vietnam Era veterans, Mr. Ruelas goes on to say, ``many 50 year olds are unemployed, untrained and uneducated and could use their educational benefits to improve their skills to compete for better jobs. Many have come to realize, too late, that they need college or retraining and don't have the resources to do so.'' While times have changed remarkably, one thing remains constant: education is critical to employment opportunity. In the 21st Century global labor market, enhancing skills through education and job training is now more important than ever. The need for retraining is even more underscored for our military service members and veterans. My legislation, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life, would ensure that educational opportunities are lifelong, allowing service members and veterans the flexibility to seek education and job training opportunities when it is the right time for them to do so. Higher education not only serves as an individual benefit, but positive externalities have transpired: the GI Bill was instrumental in building our country's middle class and continues to help close the college education gap. Today, employers are requiring higher qualifications from the workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of postsecondary education. While a highly skilled workforce is one characteristic of the new economy, working for one employer throughout a lifetime is no longer routine, but rather an evanescent feature. According to findings by Brigham Young University, the average person changes jobs or careers eight times in his or her lifetime. To keep up with these trends, expanding access to education and training is a must do in the 21st Century global marketplace. A 1999 report by the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance stated that the GI Bill of the future must include the following: Provide veterans with access to post- secondary education that they use; assist the Armed forces in recruiting the high quality high school graduates needed; enhance the Nation's competitiveness by further educating American veterans, a population that is already self-disciplined, goal oriented, and steadfast; and attract the kind of service members who will go on to occupy leadership positions in government and the private sector. Eliminating the GI Bill 10 and 14 year limitation for service members, veterans, and Selected Reserve moves one step toward improving the MGIB. The Montgomery GI Bill for Life would allow MGIB members, including qualified Vietnam Era Veterans, the flexibility to access their earned education benefits at any time. As the nation's economy continues to recover and grow stronger, the GI Bill will continue to be the primary vehicle keeping our active duty service members and veterans of military service on track, helping to ensure our country's prosperity.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an investment program in lifelong education for our service members and veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill is consistently cited as an important reason people join the military and continues to be one of the most important benefits provided for military service today. There is no reason why 100 percent of our active duty, selected reserve, and veteran servicemembers should not have the opportunity to take advantage of their earned education benefits. That is why I'm reintroducing the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007, which would allow Montgomery GI Bill participants an unlimited amount of time to use their earned benefits. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, is again joining me in sponsoring this legislation and that Senator Sherrod Brown has also signed on to further extend MGIB benefits. The MGIB is a program that provides up to 36 months of education benefits for educational opportunities ranging from college to apprenticeship and job training, and even flight training. Upon enlistment, the GI Bill also requires service members to contribute $100 per month for their first 12 months of services. Basically, the MGIB is divided into two programs. One program targets active duty and veteran members, paying over $1,000 per month to qualified students. That's more than $36,000 for school. The other is directed at the Selected Reserve. This program provides educational benefits of $288 per month, for a total of $10,368. If recruits are overwhelmingly declaring that education opportunity under the GI Bill is the key incentive for them to join the military, then it makes sense that most--if not all--of our troops, who signed up for the program, would also be cashing in on their benefits. But reports show that the majority, 40 to 60 percent, do not actually use the benefits they have earned. Currently, MGIB participants have up to 10 years from their release date from the military to use their earned education benefits. Members of the Selected Reserve are able to use their MGIB benefit for 14 years. However, that means your earned education benefits expire if you don't use the within the required timeframe, closing your window of opportunity to go to school or finish your college education. Plus, you lose the $1,200 dedicated for your GI Bill during your first year of enlistment. Originally, the intent of 1944 GI Bill of Rights was to help veterans successfully transition back into civilian life as education is the key to employment opportunities. Looking back now, we know that the GI Bill opened the door to higher education, helping millions of service members and veterans who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance to pay for college. That is, servicemembers benefited from the GI Bill because they used the payments within the 10 and 14 year limitation. But there are many others who did not use their earned education benefits within that timeframe. For example, after leaving the military, some servicemembers postponed going to school because they had to go straight to work in order to support their family. Others unfortunately, were either homeless or incarcerated for long periods of time due to disability associated with military service, but are now ready to move forward in their lives, and going back to school is their first step. In some cases, due to random life circumstances, some people just lost track of time. Additionally, because of misinformation and bureaucratic language, the GI Bill is known as a complicated program to navigate. A constituent of mine, Ruben Ruelas--who is a Local Veterans Employment Representative, LVER, for the WorkSource in Wenatchee, Washington, wrote to me saying, ``It's been my experience that most people don't know what they want to do in life or are placed in situations where, due to changing economic times, they are displaced and need further education and training to compete for jobs. But most don't have access to training resources to do so.'' In terms of Vietnam Era veterans, Mr. Ruelas goes on to say, ``many 50 year olds are unemployed, untrained and uneducated and could use their educational benefits to improve their skills to compete for better jobs. Many have come to realize, too late, that they need college or retraining and don't have the resources to do so.'' While times have changed remarkably, one thing remains constant: education is critical to employment opportunity. In the 21st Century global labor market, enhancing skills through education and job training is now more important than ever. The need for retraining is even more underscored for our military service members and veterans. My legislation, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life, would ensure that educational opportunities are lifelong, allowing service members and veterans the flexibility to seek education and job training opportunities when it is the right time for them to do so. Higher education not only serves as an individual benefit, but positive externalities have transpired: the GI Bill was instrumental in building our country's middle class and continues to help close the college education gap. Today, employers are requiring higher qualifications from the workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of postsecondary education. While a highly skilled workforce is one characteristic of the new economy, working for one employer throughout a lifetime is no longer routine, but rather an evanescent feature. According to findings by Brigham Young University, the average person changes jobs or careers eight times in his or her lifetime. To keep up with these trends, expanding access to education and training is a must do in the 21st Century global marketplace. A 1999 report by the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance stated that the GI Bill of the future must include the following: Provide veterans with access to post- secondary education that they use; assist the Armed forces in recruiting the high quality high school graduates needed; enhance the Nation's competitiveness by further educating American veterans, a population that is already self-disciplined, goal oriented, and steadfast; and attract the kind of service members who will go on to occupy leadership positions in government and the private sector. Eliminating the GI Bill 10 and 14 year limitation for service members, veterans, and Selected Reserve moves one step toward improving the MGIB. The Montgomery GI Bill for Life would allow MGIB members, including qualified Vietnam Era Veterans, the flexibility to access their earned education benefits at any time. As the nation's economy continues to recover and grow stronger, the GI Bill will continue to be the primary vehicle keeping our active duty service members and veterans of military service on track, helping to ensure our country's prosperity.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate and pay tribute to the life of a great Washingtonian, a great American, and someone who in the State of Washington will be remembered for his great contributions and who will be remembered across our country. I am talking about our former Washington State Speaker of the House, John L. O'Brien, who died this past week at the age of 95. Speaker O'Brien actually passed away on the last day of this year's legislative session, almost an appropriate dedication for him for the remembrance of his service in our State government. I am proud to say John L. O'Brien was a good friend, a mentor, and someone who imparted a lot of political wisdom in the State of Washington. He served in our State legislature for 52 years, from 1939 to 1993, and he served as speaker of the house for a chunk of that period, 1955 to 1963. He served under nine different Governors. At one point in time, I believe, he held the record in our country for the longest serving State legislator. He did a tremendous job as majority leader; I am sure at times as minority leader; as speaker, as I mentioned, speaker pro tem. I believe he served on every single committee in our State legislature. He led our State's government through some great challenges for us and for our country. He literally was in office when the United States went to declare World War II in 1954. He was speaker when the first flight of the Boeing 707 was completed. He saw the Space Needle completed for the World's Fair that was held in Seattle in 1962. He was there when Microsoft was founded. He led our State through the challenging times responding to Mount St. Helen's eruption in 1980. And he was there to lead our celebration as Washington State celebrated our 100th anniversary as a State in 1989. But John O'Brien also was a man who thought about the future, and he has an unending list of accomplishments that literally touched the lives of thousands of Washingtonians. He changed the course of history in our State by his generosity, by his leadership, by his commitment, his inspiration. I know my remarks will not do him justice, but I just want to say that he did a lot in a time and period of making sure that despite the lofty position he held in the house, he never lost track of what the constituents of his district and of our State cared about. He worked on property tax relief for seniors and low-income individuals. He fought for prescription and over-the-counter drug information labeling so that seniors knew what kind of products they were purchasing. He was a champion of State employee collective bargaining and workplace safety issues. He sponsored Washington State's first clean air act. That might sound like something lots of people do, but he actually sponsored that legislation in 1940. So he was ahead of his time in thinking about Washington State's environment and how to preserve the pristine quality of life that is so important to us. He helped to establish one of the first programs in the Nation to commit a percentage of our construction budget for the creation of art. He helped save and restore Franklin High School. He worked to make sure we established a drug-free zone and got legislation passed removing the sales tax from items sold at charitable auctions. John O'Brien represented one of the most diverse neighborhoods in Seattle, an area called the Rainer Valley. The Rainer Valley began as an Irish and Italian community of immigrants, and with Speaker O'Brien's leadership, it helped to incorporate various waves of new immigrants from various communities: the Chinese-American community, Japanese, Filipino, African American, Orthodox Jews, Vietnamese, East African, and Hispanic citizens. Now, it is, as I said, one of the most diverse areas of our State. When the Seattle Times ran a story about Speaker O'Brien's life and how his values were shaped, they said: Mr. O'Brien was just 7 years old when his Irish immigrant father, a detective with the Seattle Police, came home after a particularly tough day on the job. He turned to his eldest son and asked, rhetorically, ``What will ever become of you if something happens to me?'' Two years later his father was shot and killed while on duty. That left the young Mr. O'Brien to help his mother, also an Irish immigrant, care for their siblings. By the time he was a teenager, he was bringing home a paycheck as a truckdriver for Keefe's Grocery in Rainier Valley. He went on to start his own accounting firm. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer quoted former Governor Dan Evans, who knew John O'Brien well, who said: He knew how to lead and occasionally when things got rambunctious, he had to have a heavy gavel to get things back in order. Evans remembered one time when he challenged an O'Brien ruling, O'Brien slammed his gavel down so hard the head snapped off. While O'Brien was a fiscally conservative Democrat, he understood what the role of the speaker required of him. He was always ready to have a good time. I remember that if there was ever anybody who captured the saying, ``when Irish eyes are smiling,'' it was John O'Brien because he had a twinkle in his eye and a way to get people engaged. When I entered the State legislature at the age of 28, I was the youngest member at the time, and he was the most senior member of our legislature. Knowing of my Irish heritage background, he got me to commit to him that I would participate in St. Patrick's Day celebrations in his office by doing the Irish jig if, in fact, he produced someone with a bagpipe. Well, unbeknownst to me, our secretary of state, Ralph Monroe, of Scottish heritage, had such bagpipes stored in his office and was quite frequently seen in the halls of Olympia playing the bagpipes. So on St. Patrick's Day I did participate in Speaker O'Brien's St. Patrick's Day celebration, as did our secretary of state, Ralph Monroe, and many others. I hope to this day that there is not a picture of my rendition of my Irish heritage dance. But I know I will always remember on St. Patrick's Day John O'Brien and his great service and his heritage in our State. On the last two pages of his biography, ``Speaker of the House,'' Speaker John O'Brien sums up his philosophy on how to survive in a legislature. He said: Do your best, count the votes, and, win or lose, move on to other pressing issues. He said: It might stay with you for a while, but as far as being disappointed, you cannot let it remain as a personal matter because there's always another rollcall. There's always another day. We can find inspiration in Speaker O'Brien's service as we face tough legislative issues here and as we face our vote today. No matter on what side of the political aisle you stand, we can all join in honoring the inspiration from others who have served and honoring the life of Speaker John L. O'Brien for his lifetime of public service. My thoughts are with his family: his wife Mary, their six children, John O'Brien, Jr., Laurie, MaryAnn, Karen, Jeannie, and Paul, and to their grandchildren. John O'Brien was a great Washingtonian, a great citizen of our country, and we will miss him, and we will try to live up to his accomplishments and to his legacy. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 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. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about House bill H.R. 137, which has a companion Senate bill, S. 261, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. This is legislation that both the House and Senate have had much discussion on in the last several years, and something I hope will make its way to the consent calendar and final action this evening. I come to the floor tonight as someone who has been a cosponsor of this legislation for several years now, and as someone who has seen the impact of animal fighting in the state of Washington where animal fighting organizations have not only been a source of all sorts of cruel and inhumane treatment of animals, but also other illegal activity. To me this is legislation that is much needed, and we have passed similar legislation in the State of Washington. It is something we should have a strong Federal statute on. During October of 2004, there was a major raid in Vancouver, WA, where police found 21 pit bulls, as well as training logs and other evidence of animal fighting. It got quite a bit of attention as well because there were very high-profile people involved with the animal fighting ring. There is a long list of other incidents that have happened in Washington State, other activity in Yakima, WA, where various animal fighting organizations were discovered by law enforcement who have done a terrific job of uprooting these organizations in our State. It is important we take an aggressive stance and pass this legislation. The House bill we are talking about, H.R. 137, recently passed the House of Representatives, I believe with over 300 cosponsors. I am sure it had quite a few others who actually supported the legislation as it passed. We have over 35 cosponsors here with S. 261. When I look at the legislative history of this bill, it has had remarkably broad bipartisan support. It was passed by both the House and the Senate in the past. It was passed in both Chambers in 2001 and then struck in the conference report. It passed in 2003 in the Senate. It passed in 2005 again in the Senate, a unanimous measure. As I mentioned, it passed the House of Representatives. I think it is fitting that it should be on our consent calendar and hopefully pass this body this evening. The bottom line is, there are many organizations across the country that have seen the inhumane treatment of animals and have supported this legislation. The American Veterinary Medical Association supports the bill, obviously. The National Sheriffs Association supports this legislation. Police departments have been working in every part of the country and have endorsed this legislation because they see what kind of criminal activity is associated with animal fighting--gambling, drugs, and in one case in Washington State actual murder. The Federal antianimal fighting legislation is important. While we already have a Federal statute on the books, what we don't have is a Federal statute that effectively helps law enforcement meet this growing challenge. That is, with a simple misdemeanor, which is currently on the Federal books, sometimes it takes law enforcement as many as 7 to 8 months to investigate these kinds of crimes. To investigate and put that kind of energy into fighting this kind of criminal activity in our States, and then to have a maximum penalty of only up to 1 year is not adequate. In fact, in Washington State, in response to the activities that occurred in Vancouver and other parts of our State, our Governor signed an antianimal fighting bill that has been a great model for what we should be doing at the Federal level. As Washington did, this bill would make sure this crime is a felony and that it has adequate penalties. In fact, when the current Federal animal fighting law was enacted in 1976, only one State made it a felony. Today dogfighting is a felony in 48 States. We need to make sure that it is also a felony at the Federal level for transporting these animals and products associated with animal fighting across State lines. In fact, we are seeing that in many cases. In Washington State and in Oregon, we have seen this activity, because people in several States are joining together to locate and to make a profit and make investments in these kinds of criminal activities. We want to make sure we are stamping out this activity. With this legislation, we believe we have a very good chance to say that the Federal Government views this kind of animal fighting as cruel and inhumane, that we consider it a serious criminal activity to drug and force animals to fight and then to enclose them in pits while spectators engage in all sorts of gambling, narcotics trafficking, public corruption, and, in some cases, even violence toward people. That is something we ought to take a tough stance against. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I hope we can consider it in tonight's consent calendar, given how the Judiciary Committee has supported this legislation, and how it has passed both the House and Senate in the past.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act of 2007, which will make needed improvements to our national and regional ocean observing systems. The Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act would establish a national program to focus on national and international ocean observing priorities, and provide needed support for a network of regional associations that already collect and manage information in ocean and coastal areas across the nation. Currently, most long term ocean observing and data collection is carried out on a regional basis. While these regional ocean observing systems provide valuable data, lack of coordination at the national level and a lack of sustained resources have limited their effectiveness for advancing a comprehensive understanding of our oceans and coasts. The Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act of 2007 would help to rectify this by organizing regional activities under a federal interagency committee within NOAA. Improving long-term ocean observing and monitoring is a key recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and will provide the information needed to restore and sustain healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems. Specifically, this bill would bolster the Nation's ability to observe and monitor ocean conditions in order to improve tsunami warnings, better understand the impacts of climate change on the oceans, track ocean conditions that could impact human health, improve homeland security, and support maritime operations. Fishermen and mariners rely on accurate forecasts of ocean conditions for safety and navigation. An integrated ocean observing system would improve these forecasts and will save lives at sea. Ocean observing will also help authorities understand the link between ocean conditions and human health. For example, improved tracking of harmful algal blooms can minimize the risk of shellfish poisoning by warning people when the conditions exist that make harvesting shellfish dangerous. An integrated ocean and coastal observing system will prove an invaluable tool as we work to understand and overcome the challenges of climate change. The ocean covers 70 percent of the globe and plays a critical role in regulating our climate. Scientists are finding that the ocean environment is often the first of the earth's ecosystems to display the impacts of climate change. We've already detected some of these impacts, from ocean acidification's impacts on North Pacific food chains and coral reefs in the tropics, to seasonal ocean dead zones that are forming off the coast of Washington and Oregon. The effects of climate change will be felt by our fishermen and coastal communities, and ocean observing will give them the information they need to mitigate impacts. As we seek a better understanding of our oceans and coasts and the ecosystems that form the basis of life for much of the Earth's population, an integrated ocean observing system. will be an essential investment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think we all agree that the United States Coast Guard plays a critical role in keeping our oceans, coasts, and waterways safe, secure, and free from environmental harm. Following the events of September 11 and, more recently, Hurricane Katrina the Coast Guard has served as a source of strength for this Nation. And, in the face of increasing marine traffic, security threats at our Nation's ports, and climate change increasing the odds of another Katrina, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard continue to increase. The Coast Guard is struggling right now to replace their rapidly aging fleet of ships, aircraft, and facilities. At a cost of $24 billion, the Deepwater program is the largest and most complex acquisition program in the history of the Coast Guard. We have a responsibility to ensure there is transparency and oversight so this program is as efficient and effective as possible. The Deepwater program utilizes a private sector lead systems integrator, LSI, know as Integrated Coast Guard Systems, ICGS, to oversee acquisition of a ``system of systems.'' When the Deepwater contract was originally awarded in 2002, the Coast Guard did not have the personnel within their acquisition department to manage such a large contract. We were told that outsourcing that role to industry would save the Coast Guard time and money over the long run. The approach, which may have seemed innovative at the time, has not produced the promised results. Instead of cost and time savings, we've seen less competition, inadequate technical oversight and a lack of transparency. Over the last year, these problems have caused major blunders in the Deepwater program. The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, IG, has released three recent reports detailing some of the problems with Deepwater. In an August 11, 2006 report titled Major Improvements Needed in the U.S. Coast Guard's Implementation of Deepwater Information Technology System, the IG described problems with Deepwater's C41SR electronics equipment, which is to be the integrating technology linking Deepwater's aircraft and ships. On January 29, 2007, the IG released a scathing report on Deepwater's flagship National Security Cutter, NSC, documenting crucial design flaws and cost overruns created by a faulty contract structure and lack of Coast Guard oversight. Finally, on February 9, 2007, the IG released another report, this one detailing serious issues with Deepwater's 123-foot cutter conversion project. These reports, along with others by the Government Accountability Office about problems with the stalled Fast Response Cutter, FRC, program and the Deepwater contract structure, have prompted a resounding cry for Deepwater reform, transparency, and oversight. On February 14, 2007, I chaired a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard to better understand these issues and seek solutions. From that hearing it was clear that the Coast Guard was working hard to make internal reforms. It was also clear that we needed to do more to protect the American taxpayer. Today, I'm pleased to introduce, along with Senator Snowe, the Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act, a comprehensive bill which makes fundamental changes to the Coast Guard's Deepwater acquisition program. My bill requires the Coast Guard to move away from the industry-led Lead Systems Integrator and have full and open competition for future Deepwater assets. It requires a completely new ``analysis of alternatives'' of all future Deepwater assets to ensure that the Coast Guard is getting the assets best-suited for their needs. It requires the Commandant of the Coast Guard to certify to Congress that specific assets to be procured are mature and cost-effective technologies, a requirement already applied to Department of Defense contracts. And, it gives the Coast Guard the tools they need to manage this contract and future contracts effectively, including requiring the Coast Guard to make internal management changes to ensure open competition, increase technical oversight and improve reporting to Congress. I'm pleased to say that I have worked closely with Senator Snowe and the Coast Guard in crafting this bill and I'm confident that this will fix many of the problems that have plagued the Deepwater program. This legislation takes a big step towards getting the Coast Guard the assets they need to meet the pressing needs of our Nation and ensuring responsible management of taxpayer dollars. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the changes we propose today so we can get this program back on track. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think we all agree that the United States Coast Guard plays a critical role in keeping our oceans, coasts, and waterways safe, secure, and free from environmental harm. Following the events of September 11 and, more recently, Hurricane Katrina the Coast Guard has served as a source of strength for this Nation. And, in the face of increasing marine traffic, security threats at our Nation's ports, and climate change increasing the odds of another Katrina, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard continue to increase. The Coast Guard is struggling right now to replace their rapidly aging fleet of ships, aircraft, and facilities. At a cost of $24 billion, the Deepwater program is the largest and most complex acquisition program in the history of the Coast Guard. We have a responsibility to ensure there is transparency and oversight so this program is as efficient and effective as possible. The Deepwater program utilizes a private sector lead systems integrator, LSI, know as Integrated Coast Guard Systems, ICGS, to oversee acquisition of a ``system of systems.'' When the Deepwater contract was originally awarded in 2002, the Coast Guard did not have the personnel within their acquisition department to manage such a large contract. We were told that outsourcing that role to industry would save the Coast Guard time and money over the long run. The approach, which may have seemed innovative at the time, has not produced the promised results. Instead of cost and time savings, we've seen less competition, inadequate technical oversight and a lack of transparency. Over the last year, these problems have caused major blunders in the Deepwater program. The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, IG, has released three recent reports detailing some of the problems with Deepwater. In an August 11, 2006 report titled Major Improvements Needed in the U.S. Coast Guard's Implementation of Deepwater Information Technology System, the IG described problems with Deepwater's C41SR electronics equipment, which is to be the integrating technology linking Deepwater's aircraft and ships. On January 29, 2007, the IG released a scathing report on Deepwater's flagship National Security Cutter, NSC, documenting crucial design flaws and cost overruns created by a faulty contract structure and lack of Coast Guard oversight. Finally, on February 9, 2007, the IG released another report, this one detailing serious issues with Deepwater's 123-foot cutter conversion project. These reports, along with others by the Government Accountability Office about problems with the stalled Fast Response Cutter, FRC, program and the Deepwater contract structure, have prompted a resounding cry for Deepwater reform, transparency, and oversight. On February 14, 2007, I chaired a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard to better understand these issues and seek solutions. From that hearing it was clear that the Coast Guard was working hard to make internal reforms. It was also clear that we needed to do more to protect the American taxpayer. Today, I'm pleased to introduce, along with Senator Snowe, the Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act, a comprehensive bill which makes fundamental changes to the Coast Guard's Deepwater acquisition program. My bill requires the Coast Guard to move away from the industry-led Lead Systems Integrator and have full and open competition for future Deepwater assets. It requires a completely new ``analysis of alternatives'' of all future Deepwater assets to ensure that the Coast Guard is getting the assets best-suited for their needs. It requires the Commandant of the Coast Guard to certify to Congress that specific assets to be procured are mature and cost-effective technologies, a requirement already applied to Department of Defense contracts. And, it gives the Coast Guard the tools they need to manage this contract and future contracts effectively, including requiring the Coast Guard to make internal management changes to ensure open competition, increase technical oversight and improve reporting to Congress. I'm pleased to say that I have worked closely with Senator Snowe and the Coast Guard in crafting this bill and I'm confident that this will fix many of the problems that have plagued the Deepwater program. This legislation takes a big step towards getting the Coast Guard the assets they need to meet the pressing needs of our Nation and ensuring responsible management of taxpayer dollars. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the changes we propose today so we can get this program back on track. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, early in the 109th Congress I introduced a bill to address the troubling shortage of allied health professionals in our country. Sadly, we were unable to act on this bill despite continuing deficiencies in the health care workforce. That is why, today, I am reintroducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act, along with my good colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Kennedy, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, and Murray. Allied health professionals constitute roughly one third of the American healthcare workforce. These individuals take x-rays, perform lab tests, and provide emergency services. They help rehabilitate the injured, manage health records, and ensure patients are eating right. Allied health professionals are responsible for a critical and diverse array of functions, working with doctors and nurses to keep patients healthy. The allied health professions recognized in this bill include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech language-pathology/audiology. This is by no means a complete list of allied health professions, which is why the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to determine additional professions that can benefit. Today, many allied health professions suffer from existing workforce shortages. The American Hospital Association (AHA) reports vacancy rates of 18 percent for radiology technicians, 15.3 percent for imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent for pharmacy technicians. In my State alone, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent for ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent for radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent for nuclear medicine technologists. These shortages have real consequences for patients, often extending wait times for important test results or routine examinations. Every time I meet with hospital officials in my State, I always learn how patient care is hurt by the lack of available healthcare workers. Enrollment figures in allied health education programs suggest we will not have the individuals available to meet the challenges created by existing shortages. The Association of Schools of Allied Health Professionals (ASAHP) reports in a 2006 survey of 87 member institutions that enrollment for a number of allied health programs have not reached capacity for the seventh straight year. The Institutional Profile Survey, which the ASAHP conducts every year, shows under-enrollment by 55 percent in dietetics, 54 percent in health administration, 49 percent in rehabilitation counseling, 43 percent in health information management, 38 percent in speech language pathology/ audiology, 33 percent in emergency medical sciences, 26 percent in nuclear medicine technology, 25 percent in clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, and 20 percent in cytotechnology. These rates cannot continue. On top of existing workforce shortages, our health system faces a growing senior population, a group that typically requires more care. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the section of our population age 65 and over will begin to rapidly increase in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65. This increase will create greater demand on all sectors of the healthcare workforce. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, intends to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high-quality allied health education and training. The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants will establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in non-institutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants will promote career advancement for allied health personnel. Grants will also be made available for health care facilities to enable them to carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded in a variety of geographic regions to a range of different types of facilities, including those in rural, urban, and suburban areas. Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program. Finally, the Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program modeled after the National Health Service Corps that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas. The Allied Health Reinvestment Act represents a serious commitment on our part to confront a problem that will only grow more serious in the future. Our system of care cannot operate without the dedicated allied health professionals working today, and we must take the actions necessary to ensure that there is a strong workforce that can serve in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, early in the 109th Congress I introduced a bill to address the troubling shortage of allied health professionals in our country. Sadly, we were unable to act on this bill despite continuing deficiencies in the health care workforce. That is why, today, I am reintroducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act, along with my good colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Kennedy, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, and Murray. Allied health professionals constitute roughly one third of the American healthcare workforce. These individuals take x-rays, perform lab tests, and provide emergency services. They help rehabilitate the injured, manage health records, and ensure patients are eating right. Allied health professionals are responsible for a critical and diverse array of functions, working with doctors and nurses to keep patients healthy. The allied health professions recognized in this bill include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech language-pathology/audiology. This is by no means a complete list of allied health professions, which is why the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to determine additional professions that can benefit. Today, many allied health professions suffer from existing workforce shortages. The American Hospital Association (AHA) reports vacancy rates of 18 percent for radiology technicians, 15.3 percent for imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent for pharmacy technicians. In my State alone, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent for ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent for radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent for nuclear medicine technologists. These shortages have real consequences for patients, often extending wait times for important test results or routine examinations. Every time I meet with hospital officials in my State, I always learn how patient care is hurt by the lack of available healthcare workers. Enrollment figures in allied health education programs suggest we will not have the individuals available to meet the challenges created by existing shortages. The Association of Schools of Allied Health Professionals (ASAHP) reports in a 2006 survey of 87 member institutions that enrollment for a number of allied health programs have not reached capacity for the seventh straight year. The Institutional Profile Survey, which the ASAHP conducts every year, shows under-enrollment by 55 percent in dietetics, 54 percent in health administration, 49 percent in rehabilitation counseling, 43 percent in health information management, 38 percent in speech language pathology/ audiology, 33 percent in emergency medical sciences, 26 percent in nuclear medicine technology, 25 percent in clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, and 20 percent in cytotechnology. These rates cannot continue. On top of existing workforce shortages, our health system faces a growing senior population, a group that typically requires more care. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the section of our population age 65 and over will begin to rapidly increase in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65. This increase will create greater demand on all sectors of the healthcare workforce. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, intends to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high-quality allied health education and training. The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants will establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in non-institutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants will promote career advancement for allied health personnel. Grants will also be made available for health care facilities to enable them to carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded in a variety of geographic regions to a range of different types of facilities, including those in rural, urban, and suburban areas. Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program. Finally, the Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program modeled after the National Health Service Corps that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas. The Allied Health Reinvestment Act represents a serious commitment on our part to confront a problem that will only grow more serious in the future. Our system of care cannot operate without the dedicated allied health professionals working today, and we must take the actions necessary to ensure that there is a strong workforce that can serve in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I was unfortunately delayed from voting on the DeMint amendment No. 158--rollcall vote No. 25. For the record, I would have voted no on the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, on Martin Luther King Day, we celebrated a man and honored his legacy. It is an opportunity to recognize the movement he inspired and carry it forward with renewed energy. I consider his work and his words, striving to give them both new life. ``The arc of the moral universe is long,'' King said, ``but it bends towards justice.'' As a national community, we must never rest in the pursuit of that justice. We must always demand that our community leaders and elected officials pursue their work with compassion and integrity. This year, as we commemorate Dr. King's bold vision and great spirit, our Nation stands at a critical point along that arc. The American people called for a new direction and a new tone in Washington, DC. They put the politics of polarization aside and asked their representatives in Washington to focus instead on the issues that matter most. Too many hard-working Americans are struggling just to get by today. It is time to expand opportunity for all and ensure everyone has a real shot at the American dream. The best guarantee of a good, secure job in today's increasingly competitive world is a quality education. But not everyone has that opportunity. I know what it is like to have a tough time affording college: With the help of Federal Pell grants, I was the first in my family to graduate from college. Today, a college education costs a small fortune, yet it is harder than ever to find help. Since 2001, tuition has increased by over 30 percent at the average 4-year public school. Over the same period, family incomes have increased less than 6 percent. As the cost of college continues to rise and family incomes stagnate, more and more students are qualifying for Pell grants and other Federal student aid programs. We can't let a college education become a privilege just for the wealthy. We must ensure that families and students can afford college, regardless of their financial resources. That is why in the Senate, I am fighting to increase the maximum Pell grant to $5,100--an amount that actually keeps pace with costs. That is also why, on the first day of the 110th session of Congress earlier this month, I introduced legislation to permanently increase the amount that families can save annually for college and take as a tax deduction. On the same day, in that same spirit, I introduced other legislation to encourage employees to set aside money for their education costs and to encourage employers to provide matching funds through lifelong learning accounts. It is about investing in a more competitive America, a growing economy, and our common future. We are creating a better world for our businesses, our State, and most importantly our workers. The policies we choose to support reflect our priorities as a nation. When the middle-class gets squeezed from every side, it may be easiest to relent, accept the status quo, or give in to frustration. But we have a responsibility to fight back and to fight for something better. That is what Martin Luther King may have called infinite hope. We can honor King by coming together and making that promise a reality.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues, Senators Specter and Ensign, in reintroducing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this important bill finally become the law of the land. There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs. It's all done for ``entertainment'' and illegal gambling. Children are sometimes brought to these spectacles, and the fights are frequently accompanied by illegal drug trafficking and acts of human violence. In 2006, nine murders related to animal fighting occurred across the country. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a ``cost of doing business'' by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide. These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as I evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them. Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as ``slashers'' and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds' legs for fighting. Cockfighting magazines I and websites contain hundreds of advertisements for mail- order knives and gaffs, revealing a thriving interstate market for the weapons used in cockfights. This is long overdue legislation. Both the Senate and House approved felony animal fighting provisions in their Farm Bills in 2001, but they were stripped out in conference. The Senate included felony animal fighting provisions in the 2003 Health Forest Bill, but they were again dropped in conference. In September 2004, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act was approved by the House Judiciary Committee, but did not reach the floor. In April 2005, the Senate passed a bill nearly identical to the one we are introducing today, when it unanimously approved S. 382. In May 2006, the House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a comprehensive hearing on the House companion bill, H.R. 817, which garnered 324 cosponsors but was not considered on the House floor. The legislative history of this animal fighting felony legislation shows it has broad bipartisan support of more than half the Senate, and it has won unanimous approval on the floor time and time again. It's time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. With the bird flu threat looming, we can't afford to wait any longer. The economic consequences are staggering--the World Bank projects worldwide losses of $1.5 to $2 trillion. We must be able to say we did all we could to prevent such a pandemic, and this is an obvious, easy and necessary step. Interstate and international transport of birds for cockfighting is known to have contributed to the spread of avian influenza in Asia and poses a threat to poultry and public health in the United States. According to the World Health Organization and local news reports, at least nine confirmed human fatalities from avian influenza in Thailand and Vietnam may have been contracted through cockfighting activity since the beginning of 2004. Several children are among those who are reported to have died from avian influenza as a result of exposure through cockfighting, including 4-year-old, 6-year-old, and 18-year-old boys in Thailand and a 6-year-old girl in Vietnam. There have been many news stories focusing on the connection between bird flu and cockfighting. For example, an MSNBC report headlined, ``Cock-fights blamed for Thailand bird flu spread.'' A World Health Organization Asia regional spokesperson interviewed recently on the CBS Evening News described the risk of spreading disease through cockfighting with infected animals as a ``total disaster waiting to happen.'' Because human handling of fighting roosters is a regular occurrence, the opportunity of disease transmission from fighting birds to people is substantial. Fighting-bird handlers come into frequent, sustained contact with their birds during training and during organized fights. It is common practice for handlers to suck saliva and blood from roosters' beaks to help clear their airways and enable them to keep fighting. Cockfighters frequently move birds across State and foreign borders, bringing them to fight in different locations and risking the spread of infectious diseases. Communications in national cockfighting magazines and websites have shown that U.S. cockfighters regularly transport their birds to and from other parts of the world, including Asia. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in endorsing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, noted that strengthening current Federal law on the inhumane practice of animal fighting would enhance the agency's ability to safeguard the health of U.S. poultry against deadly diseases such as avian influenza and exotic Newcastle disease (END). The USDA has stated that cockfighting was implicated in an outbreak of END that spread through California and the Southwest in 2002 and 2003. That outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions more in lost export markets. The costs of an avian influenza outbreak in this country could be much higher--with the Congressional Budget Office estimating losses between 1.5 and 5 percent of GDP ($185 billion to $618 billion). The National Chicken Council, which represents 95 percent of all U.S. poultry producers and processors, has also endorsed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, expressing concern that avian influenza and other diseases can be spread by the movement of game birds and that the commercial chicken industry remains under considerable threat because it operates amidst a national network of game bird operations. Avian influenza has not yet crossed the species barrier in this country, as it has in Asia. But we must do all we can to minimize this risk. Establishing a more meaningful deterrent to illegal interstate and foreign movement of animals for fighting purposes is an obvious step we can take to reduce this risk. Besides those associated with the poultry industry, this legislation has been endorsed by a number of other organization including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Sheriffs' Association, and more than 400 individual sheriffs and police departments covering every State in the country. Those law enforcement agencies recognize that animal fighting often involves the movement of animals across State and foreign borders, so they can't do the job on their own. They need the Federal Government to do its part to help curb this dangerous activity. Our legislation does not expand the federal government's reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects States' rights in the two States where cockfighting is still allowed, and it protects States' rights the other 48 States--and all 50, for dogfighting--where weak Federal law is compromising their ability to keep animal fighting outside their borders. The bill we introduce today is identical to S. 382, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, except for one change. The new bill provides for up to three years' jail time, compared to two in S. 382, in order to bring this more in line with penalties for other federal animal cruelty-related felonies. For example, in 1999, Congress authorized imprisonment of up to 5 years for interstate commerce in videos depicting animal cruelty, including animal fighting, P.L. 106- 152, and mandatory jail time of up to 10 years for willfully harming or killing a federal police dog or horse (P.L. 106-254). With every week, there are new reports of animal fighting busts, as local and state law enforcement struggle to rein in this thriving industry. In my own State of Washington, police arrested 5 people on Christmas Day at a cockfight in Brewster, and about 50 people ran off, according to recent news accounts. Three days later, six more were arrested in Okanogan for promoting cockfighting. And nine people were arrested in Tacoma last spring, where investigators seized methamphetamines, marijuana, weapons, thousands of dollars, and fighting roosters. It's time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. State and local law enforcement will have a tough law on the books necessary to help them crack down on this interstate industry. I thank my colleagues for their support, and look forward to working with them to finally enacting this common-sense measure into law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues, Senators Specter and Ensign, in reintroducing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this important bill finally become the law of the land. There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs. It's all done for ``entertainment'' and illegal gambling. Children are sometimes brought to these spectacles, and the fights are frequently accompanied by illegal drug trafficking and acts of human violence. In 2006, nine murders related to animal fighting occurred across the country. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a ``cost of doing business'' by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide. These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as I evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them. Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as ``slashers'' and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds' legs for fighting. Cockfighting magazines I and websites contain hundreds of advertisements for mail- order knives and gaffs, revealing a thriving interstate market for the weapons used in cockfights. This is long overdue legislation. Both the Senate and House approved felony animal fighting provisions in their Farm Bills in 2001, but they were stripped out in conference. The Senate included felony animal fighting provisions in the 2003 Health Forest Bill, but they were again dropped in conference. In September 2004, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act was approved by the House Judiciary Committee, but did not reach the floor. In April 2005, the Senate passed a bill nearly identical to the one we are introducing today, when it unanimously approved S. 382. In May 2006, the House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a comprehensive hearing on the House companion bill, H.R. 817, which garnered 324 cosponsors but was not considered on the House floor. The legislative history of this animal fighting felony legislation shows it has broad bipartisan support of more than half the Senate, and it has won unanimous approval on the floor time and time again. It's time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. With the bird flu threat looming, we can't afford to wait any longer. The economic consequences are staggering--the World Bank projects worldwide losses of $1.5 to $2 trillion. We must be able to say we did all we could to prevent such a pandemic, and this is an obvious, easy and necessary step. Interstate and international transport of birds for cockfighting is known to have contributed to the spread of avian influenza in Asia and poses a threat to poultry and public health in the United States. According to the World Health Organization and local news reports, at least nine confirmed human fatalities from avian influenza in Thailand and Vietnam may have been contracted through cockfighting activity since the beginning of 2004. Several children are among those who are reported to have died from avian influenza as a result of exposure through cockfighting, including 4-year-old, 6-year-old, and 18-year-old boys in Thailand and a 6-year-old girl in Vietnam. There have been many news stories focusing on the connection between bird flu and cockfighting. For example, an MSNBC report headlined, ``Cock-fights blamed for Thailand bird flu spread.'' A World Health Organization Asia regional spokesperson interviewed recently on the CBS Evening News described the risk of spreading disease through cockfighting with infected animals as a ``total disaster waiting to happen.'' Because human handling of fighting roosters is a regular occurrence, the opportunity of disease transmission from fighting birds to people is substantial. Fighting-bird handlers come into frequent, sustained contact with their birds during training and during organized fights. It is common practice for handlers to suck saliva and blood from roosters' beaks to help clear their airways and enable them to keep fighting. Cockfighters frequently move birds across State and foreign borders, bringing them to fight in different locations and risking the spread of infectious diseases. Communications in national cockfighting magazines and websites have shown that U.S. cockfighters regularly transport their birds to and from other parts of the world, including Asia. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in endorsing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, noted that strengthening current Federal law on the inhumane practice of animal fighting would enhance the agency's ability to safeguard the health of U.S. poultry against deadly diseases such as avian influenza and exotic Newcastle disease (END). The USDA has stated that cockfighting was implicated in an outbreak of END that spread through California and the Southwest in 2002 and 2003. That outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions more in lost export markets. The costs of an avian influenza outbreak in this country could be much higher--with the Congressional Budget Office estimating losses between 1.5 and 5 percent of GDP ($185 billion to $618 billion). The National Chicken Council, which represents 95 percent of all U.S. poultry producers and processors, has also endorsed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, expressing concern that avian influenza and other diseases can be spread by the movement of game birds and that the commercial chicken industry remains under considerable threat because it operates amidst a national network of game bird operations. Avian influenza has not yet crossed the species barrier in this country, as it has in Asia. But we must do all we can to minimize this risk. Establishing a more meaningful deterrent to illegal interstate and foreign movement of animals for fighting purposes is an obvious step we can take to reduce this risk. Besides those associated with the poultry industry, this legislation has been endorsed by a number of other organization including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Sheriffs' Association, and more than 400 individual sheriffs and police departments covering every State in the country. Those law enforcement agencies recognize that animal fighting often involves the movement of animals across State and foreign borders, so they can't do the job on their own. They need the Federal Government to do its part to help curb this dangerous activity. Our legislation does not expand the federal government's reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects States' rights in the two States where cockfighting is still allowed, and it protects States' rights the other 48 States--and all 50, for dogfighting--where weak Federal law is compromising their ability to keep animal fighting outside their borders. The bill we introduce today is identical to S. 382, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, except for one change. The new bill provides for up to three years' jail time, compared to two in S. 382, in order to bring this more in line with penalties for other federal animal cruelty-related felonies. For example, in 1999, Congress authorized imprisonment of up to 5 years for interstate commerce in videos depicting animal cruelty, including animal fighting, P.L. 106- 152, and mandatory jail time of up to 10 years for willfully harming or killing a federal police dog or horse (P.L. 106-254). With every week, there are new reports of animal fighting busts, as local and state law enforcement struggle to rein in this thriving industry. In my own State of Washington, police arrested 5 people on Christmas Day at a cockfight in Brewster, and about 50 people ran off, according to recent news accounts. Three days later, six more were arrested in Okanogan for promoting cockfighting. And nine people were arrested in Tacoma last spring, where investigators seized methamphetamines, marijuana, weapons, thousands of dollars, and fighting roosters. It's time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. State and local law enforcement will have a tough law on the books necessary to help them crack down on this interstate industry. I thank my colleagues for their support, and look forward to working with them to finally enacting this common-sense measure into law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to discuss a critically important issue to Washington's farmers and ranchers--disaster assistance. I support the agriculture disaster assistance legislation that is before us here on the floor and am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill. Washington's agriculture economy is supported by small and medium- sized family farms. Our farmers are a key economic engine for the state, producing more than 300 different commodities on 15.3 million acres valued at over $6.4 billion every year. And in our state, agriculture alone supports more than 300,000 good paying jobs. Washington's farm families understand hardship. They understand that when you are in the business of farming, you have good years and you have bad years. Recent years have been particularly hard for them. Many are struggling just to make ends meet as they face low commodity prices, an influx of commodities grown abroad, and high fuel and fertilizer prices stemming from the hurricane disasters of last year. Unfortunately, in recent years, many producers have also had to cope with crops lost to adverse weather. Over the last three crop years, inclement weather, wildfires, and flooding have exacerbated the already difficult challenges farmers in my state face. In 2004, 32 of Washington state's 39 counties received disaster declarations. In 2005, it was 13 counties. So far this year, 24 counties in the State have received disaster declarations. Once assessments have been completed on the damages sustained from recent flooding throughout Puget Sound and across the Olympic Peninsula, I am confident even more counties will receive declarations. This year many producers lost their crops or had their crops severely damaged due to adverse weather. Others lost livestock or had herds displaced due to wildfires. This summer, I visited with farmers in central Washington after the region sustained significant crop losses from hail, wind, and rain in June and July. I saw firsthand the damage that many of Washington's apple, pear, and cherry orchards incurred. I saw the fruit that was no longer salvageable. I saw the losses that these orchards sustained. Individual orchards throughout much of the tree fruit-growing regions in north central Washington state--in counties like Chelan, Douglas and Okanogan--lost significant portions of their crop. Some farms were decimated by the storms and lost their entire harvest. These losses threaten the continued viability of many of these family farms and orchards. The losses also affect the rural communities and economies these farms help support. Agriculture is the primary, and in some cases the only, economic driver in many rural communities throughout Washington state. Packing houses, processors, dusters, shippers and other small businesses depend on the harvest almost as much as the producers themselves. Many of these businesses had to lay off hundreds of workers this year because there simply was no fruit to pick or pack. The agriculture disaster legislation currently before the Senate contains important provisions that will provide desperately needed relief for our farmers and ranchers as they begin to recover during this difficult time. It also contains economic assistance grants to help the small businesses that support our farming communities. We must act now to provide assistance and ensure the continued viability of American farmers and farm families who lost their crop to disaster. Without it, many will not survive. I urge my colleagues to join me today in making a commitment to help our farm families and the communities in which they live by providing them the assistance they desperately need. Voting for the Conrad amendment is to vote for funding that will come to your state and help your farmers stay viable. I urge my colleagues to support the Conrad amendment.